Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Tees Conservancy Bill [Lords],

Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

Madras Railway Annuities Bill [Lords],

Not amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Port of London and Midland Railway Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Babington's Divorce Bill [Lords],

Read a Second time, and committed.

SELECTION.

Ordered, That Captain Craig be discharged from the Committee of Selection. Ordered, That Mr. Reid be added to the Committee.—[Colonel Gibbs.]

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATIES.

EX-ENEMY PROPERTY.

Mr. MILLS: 1.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what circumstances are now accepted by the Public Trustee as sufficient to establish the loss of original nationality and present stateless condition of persons formerly of German, Austrian, Bulgarian, and Turkish nationality, respectively, so as to enable him to release property belonging to them which was seized during the War?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Baldwin): The circumstances depend upon the law of the
country of which the person was a national, and it is difficult to summarise them in an answer. Stated shortly, they are, in the case of Germany, a formal discharge by the German Government or uninterrupted residence out of Germany for 10 years without registration at a German Consulate. Applications for the release of the property on the grounds referred to should, where the applicant was formerly of German nationality, be made to the Public Trustee. Other applications should be addressed to the Administrator of Austrian, Hungarian, and Bulgarian Property. Pending the ratification of a Treaty of Peace with Turkey, no statement can be made regarding the property of Turkish nationals.

COMPENSATION CLAIMS.

Mr. KENNEDY: 3.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the circumstances of claimants for compensation for suffering and damage by enemy action are being inquired into by representatives of the Charity Organisation Society, acting on behalf of the Royal Commission appointed to deal with this matter; whether he is aware that claimants resent being visited and catechised by the irresponsible officials of this society; and if steps can be taken to have any necessary inquiries conducted in future by persons of responsibility acting on behalf of some public authority?

Mr. BALDWIN: The hon. Member no doubt refers to the inquiries which have to be made in order to ascertain whether particular cases should be given priority of consideration on the ground of the specially necessitous circumstances of the claimants. For this purpose it is necessary to make use of any suitable assistance that may be available, including, where possible, that of local authorities, and in a number of cases the Charity Organisation Society have kindly given their help.

Mr. KENNEDY: Will the Commission consider any evidence supplied which might conflict with the information supplied by the Charity Organisation Society?

Mr. BALDWIN: I assume that when an investigation is made, evidence will be taken from either party.

STEAMSHIP "BISMARCK."

Mr. W. THORNE: 40.
asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that the 56,000-ton liner "Bismarck," which is about to be named "Majestic," has been sold to the White Star Shipping Company, and that the ship in question is about to be surrendered to Great Britain in accordance with the Treaty arrangements; if he can state what the White Star Company paid for the liner; if he is aware that if a ship of the same tonnage was built in one of the British shipyards it would have found employment for thousands of men; and if he will take action in the matter?

Mr. BALDWIN: The statements in the first part of the question are correct. The total amount realised by the sale of ex-German ships has been published, but it is not desirable to state the prices paid for individual ships. It is most unsafe to assume that if this ship had not been delivered to Great Britain under the Peace Treaty a vessel of this character would have been laid down here.

Mr. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that as a consequence of the very large amount of tonnage taken from Germany under the Peace Treaty, thousands of our ship-building workers have been deprived of employment?

Sir W. RAEBURN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that no sane ship-owner would place an order for such a vessel under present circumstances and at present prices; and, further, is it not the case that this vessel is giving employment to a vast number of sea-faring men who would otherwise probably be out of employment?

GALLIPOLI.

Sir NEWTON MOORE: 41.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government will consult the Governments of Australia and New Zealand before agreeing with any proposal to hand over to Greece the Gallipoli Peninsula, a locality hallowed by the graves of so many gallant members of the British Empire, but more particularly from the Dominions of Australia and New Zealand?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN (Leader of the House): As my hon. and gallant
Friend the Member for Stafford was informed on 30th March, His Majesty's Government fully recognise the special interest of Australia and New Zealand in the Gallipoli Peninsula, but the arrangement whereby the peninsula was to be handed over to Greece forms part of the Treaty of Sèvres, which was signed on behalf of the two Governments. The proposals put forward by the Allied Foreign Ministers at Paris in March will not, if adopted, vary this arrangement.

NEAR EAST.

Sir J. D. REES: 81.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Turks have intimated their acceptance of the settlement now proposed; and, if not, to which provision thereof they take exception?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): No answer has been received from Turkey.

Mr. AUBREY HERBERT: 83.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the proposed terms of peace in the Near East were arrived at independently by the three foreign Ministers, or whether this settlement, which is vital to the well-being of Greece, Turkey, and Bulgaria, was discussed with the representatives of those countries?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I would refer the hon. Member to the first paragraph of the official communiqué issued by the Conference at Paris on 26th March, where it is stated that conversations took place with the representatives both of Greece and Turkey. As the Bulgarian Treaty was not under discussion, no representative of Bulgaria was consulted.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

MANUFACTURED EXPORTS.

Mr. PENNEFATHER: 4.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the average yearly value of our manufactured exports during 1911, 1912, and 1913; and the average yearly percentage of the same which went to Russia?

Mr. BALDWIN: During the years specified in the question the average declared value of commodities (the
produce and manufacture of the United Kingdom) registered as exported yearly to all destinations, which were classed in our Trade Accounts as wholly or mainly manufactured, amounted to £386,206,000. Of this aggregate amount the goods consigned to Russia (the former Russian Empire) amounted to £8,990,000, or 2.3 per cent. of the total.

Mr. HASLAM: 9.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the value of exports during the years 1913 and 1921 from the United Kingdom to Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and South Africa, respectively, giving the amount per head of the estimated population of those Dominions severally; and similar figures of the value

Country.
1913.
1921.


Total Value of Exports.
Value per head of population.
Total Value of Exports.
Value per head of population.




£
£
s.
d.
£
£
s.
d.


Commonwealth of Australia
…
34,471,269
7
3
0
45,644,527
8
7
4


Dominion of Canada
…
23,794,935
3
3
2
19,433,206
2
4
4


Dominion of New Zealand
…
10,837,987
10
2
10
14,928,076
12
4
5


Union of South Africa
…
22,184,818
3
11
5
29,808,328*
4
5
11


United States
…
29,294,579
0
6
1
44,200,805
0
8
2


Switzerland
…
4,212,401
1
1
9
5,543,199
1
8
6


Netherlands
…
15,429,315
2
9
8
27,328,255
3
18
11


Sweden
…
8,220,410
1
9
2
9,626,703
1
12
11


Denmark
…
5,792,257
1
19
2
10,046,380
3
1
1


Spain
…
7,851,574
0
7
11
13,453,858
0
13
3


* Excluding the Protectorate of South West Africa.

GERMAN GOODS (RE-EXPORT FROM HOLLAND).

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: 5.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the fact that, in order to facilitate entry into certain markets, German firms are establishing depots under Dutch names at different centres in Holland to which German-made goods are consigned for the purpose of re-export as Dutch goods; and whether he will make friendly representations to the Dutch Government urging that in such cases a declaration as to the country of origin should be clearly indicated?

Mr. BALDWIN: I am aware that German goods are often consigned to this country by firms established in Holland, and it is not unlikely that some of these firms are connected with German houses, but I have not had any evidence that such

of British exports for the same years to the United States, Switzerland, Holland, Sweden, Denmark, and Spain?

Mr. BALDWIN: The answer involves a Table of figures which, with the permission of the House, I will have printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the table:

The following statement shows the value of exports of United Kingdom produce and manufactures to the under-mentioned countries in 1913 and 1921, together with the average value per head of the population of the respective countries.

goods are sold here under descriptions implying a Dutch origin, nor am I aware of any grounds on which representations in the matter could be made to the Dutch Government.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: May I send the right hon. Gentleman one or two illustrations on this point?

Mr. BALDWIN: I shall be very pleased to receive them.

WHEAT AND FLOUR (IMPORTS FROM UNITED STATES).

Mr. HASLAM: 6.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether bleached flour is still being imported into the United Kingdom from the United States; whether by law in the United States bleached flour is prohibited for human consumption; will he state the quantity
of wheat and flour, respectively, imported from the United States into the United Kingdom during 1920 or 1921 (if the latter figure be available); and is he aware that in New Zealand bleached flour may not be used in the manufacture of bread?

Mr. BALDWIN: With regard to the first, second and fourth parts of the question, I have no definite information, but will make inquiry. As to the third part, the quantities of wheat, and of wheat meal and flour, imported into the United Kingdom, registered in 1921, as consigned from the United States, were 36,065,000 cwts. and 7,900,000 cwts. respectively.

FOREIGN TARIFFS.

Sir ROBERT CLOUGH: 8.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if the commercial classes of this country always receive the earliest possible warning of tariff changes contemplated by other countries so that, if any countervailing representations can be made, they shall be made before such tariffs have practically reached completion; and, if not, will he ensure this being done in future?

Mr. BALDWIN: Our missions abroad are under instructions to report at once particulars of all contemplated tariff changes, and any important information which is received from this and other sources is published as soon as it is received in the "Board of Trade Journal."

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN FISH.

Mr. TILLETT: 7.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the German Government, by agreement with His Majesty's Government, is delivering quantities of fish at Aberdeen; and, if so, whether such action is by way of reparation or indemnity?

Mr. BALDWIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The second part, therefore, does not arise.

Colonel LAMBERT WARD: 89.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the Government will introduce legislation to prohibit the landing of fish, caught by foreign nationals, at a British port when it can be proved that the fishing industry in that country is in receipt of Government subsidies?

Colonel BURN: 91.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will support legislation to prohibit the landing of fish by foreign trawlers at any British port in the case of that industry being subsidised by a grant from the Government of the country to which those trawlers belong?

Major ENTWISTLE: 92 and 94.
asked the Minister of Agriculture (1) whether the Danish and Dutch Governments grant subsidies to their fishing industry, with a view to their fishermen having an unfair advantage over the British fishing industry; whether there are any other foreign Governments, and, if so, which, which grant subsidies to their fishing industries;
(2) whether he is aware that the British fishing industry is in a parlous financial condition and that one of the main causes of the same is that fish is imported under unfair conditions from foreign countries whose Governments subsidise their fishing industries; and whether, in these circumstances, he is prepared to advise the Government to introduce legislation to prohibit the landing of fish at British ports by the trawlers of such foreign countries or to take such other steps as will protect the British fishing industry from this serious danger?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): I am aware that the British fishing industry is passing through a most difficult time, and that the difficulties are aggravated by the importation of fish from abroad. I am also aware that the Governments of the principal exporting countries give direct or indirect financial assistance to their fishing industries. I do not, however, think that the proposals made in the questions addressed to me are practicable, but if hon. Members representing constituencies where the fishing industry exists would be willing to meet me and the Deputy-Minister of Fisheries for the purpose of discussing the situation, I should be glad to arrange this at an early date.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOP CONTROL.

Mr. RAPER: 10.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the hop control is a body set up by the Government; what it costs, and when its operations are likely to cease?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I have been asked to reply. The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. No charge falls upon the State due to the existence of the Hop Control Board; the cost, of administration is met out of trading receipts. Provision is made in the Ministry of Food (Continuance) Act, 1920, for the extension of the hop control until 1925.

Mr. RAPER: Why should there be any Government control of trade whatever to-day?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The matter was fully discussed two years ago in Committee and in this House, and this particular control, which involves no expense on public funds, is continued merely to enable growers, who have been compelled to sacrifice their hops during the War, to have time in which to recover.

Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: How long will this control continue?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I have said in reply that the Bill provides for its continuance up to 1925.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

TIMBER.

Mr. GILBERT: 13.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Timber Department established during the War has yet been wound up and closed down; if not, the reason for the delay and what staff is at present employed; and if he can give any date approximately when this Department will be finished with?

Mr. BALDWIN: The answer to the first part pi the question is in the negative. The Department is engaged in disposing of the remaining stocks and equipment, settling claims, and liquidating outstanding debts; but, owing to adverse trade conditions, the work of winding it up has been delayed. The number of staff at present employed is 109, of whom 15 are under notice of discharge; and, in addition, there is at present an industrial staff numbering 224. It is, anticipated that the work of the Department will substantially be finished during the present year.

Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: Is it really necessary to keep over 300 people employed in disposing of timber which has already been paid for, which is lying on the ground and which will settle itself when trade revives?

Mr. MARSHALL STEVENS: Will the right hon. Gentleman fix a date which he thinks a reasonable date for the winding-up of the Department, and see that date is kept?

Mr. BALDWIN: The answer to both these supplementary questions is that the situation is constantly under review, and for the moment I can give no better forecast than I have given in reply to the question.

Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: May I ask why really 300 are now required to look after this moribund Department?

Mr. BALDWIN: If my hon. and gallant Friend will do me the honour to come to see me at the Board of Trade, I will show him.

FOOD DEPARTMENT (BACON SECTION).

Colonel P. WILLIAMS: 21.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, seeing that the sale of stocks of Government bacon was completed in July, and that the last delivery was made on the 5th November, he can state if any staff is still employed on the bacon section of the food department of the Board of Trade; if so, what is the number; and what salaries are being paid?

Mr. BALDWIN: An expert staff is still employed in the liquidation of the accounts of the bacon section, and in dealing with the complicated claims, involving many millions of pounds, still outstanding. This staff is 60 in number, the salaries paid amounting to £l,303 per month.

LAND COMMISSIONERS.

Mr. CHARLES PERCY: 86.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the number of commissioners and sub-commissioners of agriculture at present employed by the Government, where they are respectively stationed, the nature of their duties, and their total cost last year in salaries and allowances?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: As the answer to this question is long, I will arrange for it to be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. PERCY: Is it the intention of the Government to discontinue the service of these people?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The hon. Member had better wait till he sees the answer.

Following is the answer:

I assume that my hon. Friend refers to the Land Commissioners and Sub-commissioners employed by the Ministry of Agriculture. The numbers in England and Wales as at the 31st March, 1922, were 23 Commissioners and 19 Sub-commissioners. The staff is, however, being reduced and the numbers as at 1st June next will be 17 Commissioners and 12 Sub-commissioners. In addition, the eight Allotment Inspectors employed last year will continue to be employed during the current financial year as the pressure of work under this head prevents any reduction of staff for the present. The total salaries, including allowances for clerical assistance, paid to the Land Commissioners, Sub-commissioners and Allotment Inspectors amounted approximately during the last financial year to £40,200. The corresponding figure for the current financial year is estimated to be £26,900.

Scope of Duties.

The whole of the staff is engaged in England and Wales on the professional and technical work of the Land Department of the Ministry. The main duties of the Commissioners and Sub-commissioners are in connection with work under the Land Settlement (Facilities) Act, for the provision of small holdings. Under this Act, county councils and county boroughs acquire, equip and maintain land for small holding purposes, subject to the approval of the Ministry which is responsible for any loss reasonably and necessarily incurred until the property is taken over by the councils by valuation in 1926. The main duties of the Allotment Inspectors are in connection with claims for compensation from owners, tenants and plotholders of land entered upon by the Ministry under D.O.E.A. Regulations.

DISTRIBUTION OF STAFF.

As at 31st March, 1922.

At Headquarters.

1 Director of Land Acquisition.
1 Chief Land Commissioner.
1 Inspecting Commissioner.
1812
1 Principal Valuer (Commissioner)
1 Indoor Commissioner.
2 Sub-Commissioners.
8 Allotment Inspectors.

Newcastle-on-Tyne.

1 Commissioner.
1 Sub-Commissioner.

Scarborough.

1 Commissioner.

York.

1 Sub-Commissioner.

Liverpool.

1 Commissioner.
1 Sub-Commissioner.

Birmingham.

1 Commissioner.
1 Sub-Commissioner.

Lincoln.

1 Commissioner.
1 Sub-Commissioner.

Leicester.

1 Commissioner.
1 Sub-Commissioner.

Norwich.

1 Commissioner.
1 Sub-Commissioner.

Cambridge.

1 Commissioner.
1 Sub-Commissioner.

Harpenden.

1 Commissioner.
1 Sub-Commissioner.

Oxford.

1 Commissioner.
1 Sub-Commissioner.

Bath.

1 Commissioner.
1 Sub-Commissioner.

Malvern Link.

1 Commissioner.
1 Sub-Commissioner.

Exeter.

1 Commissioner.
1 Sub-Commissioner.

Southampton.

1 Commissioner.
1 Sub-Commissioner.

Redhill.

1 Commissioner.
1 Sub-Commissioner.

Llanrwst.

1 Commissioner.

Merioneth.

1 Commissioner.

Builth Wells.

1 Sub-Commissioner.

Cardiff.

1 Commissioner.

Carmarthen.

1 Sub-Commissioner.

As at 1st June, 1922.

At Headquarters.

1 Director of Land Acquisition.
1 Chief Land Commissioner.
1 Principal Valuer (Commissioner).
1 Indoor Commissioner.
2 Assistant Commissioners.
8 Allotment Inspectors.

Liverpool.

1 Commissioner.
1 Deputy Commissioner.

York.

1 Commissioner.
1 Assistant Commissioner.

Lincoln.

1 Commissioner.
1 Assistant Commissioner.

Birmingham.

1 Commissioner.
1 Assistant Commissioner.

Ashwell, Herts.

1 Commissioner.

Bedford.

1 Assistant Commissioner.

Cambridge.

1 Commissioner.
1 Assistant Commissioner.

Exeter.

1 Commissioner.
1 Assistant Commissioner.

Bath.

1 Commissioner.
1 Assistant Commissioner.

Reading.

1 Commissioner.
1 Assistant Commissioner.

London.

1 Commissioner.
1 Assistant Commissioner.

Llanrwst.

1 Commissioner.

Carmarthen.

1 Commissioner.

Aberystwyth.

1 Assistant Commissioner.

BOARD OF EDUCATION.

Colonel NEWMAN: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the Board of Education as at present constituted is obsolete, redundant, and is never summoned to transact business; and whether, having regard to the great sum of money expended by the taxpayer and ratepayer on public education, he will cause to be created a Board of Education charged with the duty of seeing that the money devoted to free education is spent in the best possible manner to obtain the results aimed at?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Legislation would be required to alter the constitution of the Board, and if legislation be undertaken, the precedents point in the direction of the substitution of a Ministry for a Board.

Oral Answers to Questions — WOOL (GOVERNMENT STOCKS).

Mr. GILBERT: 14.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Government are still holders of any colonial wool in this country or in the Dominions, or on its way to this country; approximately what quantities are still held on Government account; what efforts have been made to dispose of same; and when it is hoped to dispose of the whole of the wool stocks owned by the Government?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hilton Young): I have been asked to answer this question. The approximate quantities of wool at present held on Government account, and now in the hands of the British Australian Wool Realisation Association for sale are as follow:


Australian
…
…
490,000 bales.


New Zealand
…
…
554,000 bales.


South African
…
…
56,000 bales.


These figures are exclusive of the Australian owned wool under the control of the Association. Disposal is taking place continually through the usual channels of the wool auctions in London, Hull, Liverpool, Manchester and Antwerp, and as rapidly as the wool can be absorbed by the trade. It is impossible to state with precision when the whole of this wool will be disposed of, but it is at present anticipated that it will take at least two years.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME GROWN SUGAR, LIMITED.

Mr. GILBERT: 15.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Government have invested any capital in any British sugar-producing factories or companies; if so, what companies and what amounts; whether the same is secured by debentures, or what form of shares the Government hold; and what dividends, if any, they have received on such investments?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I have been asked to reply. The Government holds 250,000 ordinary £l shares in Home Grown Sugar, Limited, a company incorporated on 13th February, 1920, and has advanced £125,000 on a second mortgage on the company's lands and factory subject to a first mortgage of £75,000 and a prior charge of £40,000 for cash advanced by the company's bankers. No dividend has been paid on the ordinary shares held by the Government, and the mortgage interest for the half year ending 12th February last is due for payment.

Mr. LEONARD LYLE: Was a committee appointed to inquire into the results of this company's working, is there a report, and, if so, are we likely to have it shortly?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Yes, Sir, a committee was appointed and I shall be glad to send a copy of the report to my hon. Friend.

Mr. KILEY: Have the Government a nominee on the Board, if so what is his name?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Yes, we have one director on the Board, Sir James Martin.

Oral Answers to Questions — SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES ACT.

SCHEDULED ARTICLES.

Major M. WOOD: 16.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that there are over 2,000 commodities liable to duty under Part I of the Safeguarding of Industries Act which are not manufactured in the United Kingdom; and whether, in view of the heavy burden this entails upon industries that depend on these commodities as their raw material, he will take steps to have them removed from the dutiable list?

Mr. BALDWIN: It has been repeatedly pointed out, both during the passage of the Safeguarding of Industries Act through this House and in reply to questions since, that the object of Part I of the Act was to encourage the development of the industries to which it relates, and the extension of their range of production to varieties of goods not previously produced in this country. I am satisfied that that extension is taking place, particularly in respect of the products of the chemical industry comprised within that heading of the Schedule to the Act which the hon. Member appears to have especially in mind; and accordingly I see no reason to take the course proposed.

Major WOOD: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that any industry is being safeguarded by the exclusion of these commodities; and is he not prepared to suspend the Act in regard to these commodities until the manufacture is started in this country? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter for debate.

Sir WILLIAM BARTON: 59.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now in a position to state what other commodities of an analogous character will be deleted from the list of dutiable articles under the Safeguarding of Industries Act following the decision of the Referee in respect of cream of tartar, tartaric and citric acids, which were held to have been improperly inserted in the list?

Mr. BALDWIN: A list will be issued in the course of this week.

CALCULATING MACHINES.

Dr. MURRAY: 17.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is in a position to say why the Referee has decided that the calculating machine known as the Loga is liable for duty under the Safeguarding of Industries Act whilst other calculating apparatus are not so dutiable; and whether he will consider the desirability of either bringing all calculating apparatus under the tax or having them all excluded?

Mr. BALDWIN: The Referee decided that calculating cylinders, of which the Loga-Calculator is only one particular
type, are properly included under the heading of scientific instruments in the Schedule to the Act. I have no power to exclude from the operation of the Act any commodities covered by the headings of the Schedule, but if the hon. Member thinks that any types of calculating apparatus which are properly dutiable have been omitted from the list issued by the Board of Trade, and will furnish me with details, I shall be glad to consider the matter.

FINE CHEMICALS.

Dr. MURRAY: 18.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, after exhaustive hearings before the Referee under Part I of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, it is admitted by his Department, manufacturers, merchants, and scientists that the term in the Schedule, all other fine chemicals, cannot be interpreted; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take to rectify the matter or whether he proposes to continue to endeavour to enforce the Act?

Mr. BALDWIN: I am unable to accept the proposition laid down in the first part of the question. The doubts which have arisen relate to only a limited number of cases, which are of a border line character, and provision for dealing with these is made in the Act itself. No further action appears necessary.

REPEAL OF ACT.

Dr. MURRAY: 19.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the judgments already signed in respect of santonine, cream of tartar, tartaric acid, citric acid, and lactose by Mr. Cyril Atkinson, K.C., the Referee appointed by the Lord Chan cellor to arbitrate in disputes arising with the Board of Trade under Part I of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, and to the reports of the Committees appointed by him under Part II of the same Act to investigate the complaints made by British toy manufacturers and by the gold beaters that unemployment is being caused in their industries by reason of the collapse of the German exchange; and whether, in view of these facts, he is prepared to repeal the Act, which places a heavy burden of administrative difficulty upon the Board of Trade and His Majesty's Customs, and which satisfies
neither manufacturers nor distributors, while avowedly increasing prices to the consumer?

Mr. BALDWIN: I am aware of the decisions to which the hon. Member refers, but I do not accept his conclusion from them, and I am not prepared to take the course suggested.

LACTOSE.

Colonel P. WILLIAMS: 20.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that very large sums of money have been paid as duty under the Safeguarding of Industries Act on imports of sugar of milk, which was improperly included in the Board of Trade's list; and whether this sum, now shown to have been improperly demanded and paid, will be returned to the importers, who have suffered considerable pecuniary loss by the Board of Trade's wrongful inclusion of this foodstuff in the list of fine chemicals?

Mr. YOUNG: I am aware that certain sums have been paid as duty as stated, As regards the second part of the question, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the concluding portion of Subsection (5) of Section 1 of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, 1921.

Colonel WILLIAMS: Not having that reference before me, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether these duties, will be returned in the same way as the Land Value Duties were returned?

Mr. YOUNG: I am advised that under this provision of the Sub-section an Amendment of this kind, under such circumstances as those referred to, does not affect the validity of anything that was done before the Amendment.

GLASS CONTAINERS.

Colonel P. WILLIAMS: 22.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called by the London Chamber of Commerce to the holding up of a consignment of a well-known brand of pills on the ground that the containers in which the pills are placed are made of glass and as such liable for duty as being lamp-blown; and whether, seeing that the Safeguarding of Industries. Act was not intended to apply to boxes and containers, he is prepared to consider
the advisability of introducing a Bill for the amending of the Safeguarding of Industries Act to prevent such anomalies?

Mr. BALDWIN: The particular case referred to in the first part of the question has not been brought to the notice of my Department, but lamp-blown glass containers are liable to duty as falling under the general heading of "lamp-blown ware" in the Schedule to the Act. Boxes and containers other than lamp-blown glassware are not within the scope of the Act, and as at present advised I see no need for legislation of the kind suggested.

COMMITTEES (PROCEDURE).

Mr. KILEY: 23.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now in a position to state if any alterations are being adopted by the Committees under the Safeguarding of Industries Act to shorten the proceedings; and whether he is prepared to adopt the suggestion made by Sir Arthur Colefax, K.C., that examination and cross-examination by witnesses should be permitted in preference to allowing statements to be made, upon which witnesses cannot be examined, and the postponement of meetings of the Committee to enable rebutting evidence to be collected, which often entails a delay of many days and involves heavy expenses on the parties interested?

Mr. BALDWIN: I am satisfied that the Committees are fully alive to the importance of completing their inquiries as rapidly as is consistent with a full examination of the questions referred to them, and I doubt very much whether the adoption of the suggestion referred to in the second part of the question would operate in the direction of reducing expense or of shortening the proceedings before the Committees.

Mr. KILEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that when a witness makes a statement that this necessitates a delay, very often of one or two weeks, to enable rebutting evidence to be brought forward to contradict the statement made, whereas counsel could put questions and get the information on the spot?

Mr. BALDWIN: I think, as a general rule, that if you omit "weeks" and substitute "days," that would be a correct statement.

APPLICATIONS.

Mr. KILEY: 24 and 58.
asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) the dates when application was made to him with respect to the imposition of a duty of 33⅓ per cent., under Part II of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, on brush ware, lace goods, silk goods, and glass bottles; and if he is aware that the prolonged time occupied by his Department in either accepting or refusing such applications are injurious to the trades concerned, as in most cases the articles are raw materials for other trades, for which estimates and prices have to be quoted months in advance; if he appreciates the difficult position which many firms are placed in owing to the uncertainties as to whether a tariff will be imposed or not on these raw materials;
(2) whether, in view of the uncertainty prevailing in trade circles as to decisions which are likely to be arrived at in connection with applications made for the imposition of a duty of 33⅓ per cent. under the Safeguarding of Industries Act, Part II, he will announce that, when a decision is actually arrived at, either by himself in rejecting the application or by a Committee who may report unfavourably on an application, such decision shall be immediately announced; and whether, when an application has been made and has been rejected as primâ facie unsatisfactory, longer time shall not be required to elapse before such application can again be considered, in order to prevent the unnecessary continuance of trade uncertainty which prevents contracts being made and thus hinders the revival of trade?

Mr. BALDWIN: I think there are objections to giving information with regard to complaints which may or may not have been received by the Board of Trade pending the decision to refer such complaints to a Committee. All complaints are dealt with as expeditiously as possible, and I have fully in mind the considerations to which the hon. Gentleman refers. With regard to the second question, it is proposed to announce without delay the effect of the findings of a Committee who report in a sense adverse to the application. I doubt, however, the desirability of making a similar announcement where the Board Trade find that no primâ facie case has
been made out, nor do I think it would be practicable to lay down any rule on the lines suggested in the last part of the question.

Mr. KILEY: Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate the fact that when an application is made, that it is known to the industry, and that if he declines or refuses the application, that that is not made public; and, therefore, a certain amount of feeling is created?

Mr. BALDWIN: I do not agree with my hon. Friend.

Mr. G. TERRELL: When will the right hon. Gentleman make his statement in regard to the action in the cases where the Committee has advised as to the action he proposed to take?

Mr. BALDWIN: I must have notice of that question.

Mr. REMER: Is it a fact that the permanent officials have absolute power to decide whether or not a primâ facie case has been made out for an application?

Mr. BALDWIN: The only person who has ultimate authority is myself.

DUTY (COLLECTION).

Mr. A. WILLIAMS: 50.
asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that the sum collected under the Safeguarding of Industries Act for the six months just expired amounts only to £134,000; that to collect this amount it has entailed the detention and examination of enormous quantities of imported goods to the estimated value of many millions of pounds; and that in addition to the inconvenience caused by the delay this has added immensely to the costs known as breaking-in, breaking-out, demurrage, clearance charges, etc., all of which charges have to be incurred not alone on the dutiable goods but on all goods so detained; and whether, in view of the smallness of the amount realised, he is prepared to consider the amending or repealing of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, even if that course involves the granting of a subsidy to any commodity that may be considered essential for the safety of the Empire?

Mr. BALDWIN: I have been asked to reply. The amount of duty collected is £141,000, but I would remind the hon.
Member that the raising of revenue was not the primary object of the Act. As regards the second part of the question, in any case where liability to duty cannot be immediately determined, delivery can always be obtained on deposit of the amount of duty to which the goods may be liable. I must point out, however, that imported goods are always liable to examination by Customs, and I am advised that the more detailed examination of certain classes of goods made necessary by the Safeguarding of Industries Act has no consequences at all commensurate with those suggested by the hon. Member. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

Captain COOTE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that more than half the money referred to is exacted from those who were our Allies during the Great War?

GOLD LEAF.

Sir W. BARTON: 60.
asked the President of the Board of Trade why the findings of the Gold Leaf Committee set up under the Safeguarding of Industries Act, Part II, which he has stated were received by him on 21st February, were not communicated to the parties concerned until the last week in March?

Mr. BALDWIN: This report, with others, was under consideration.

ACETONE.

Major M. WOOD: 63.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that acetone for industrial purposes is manufactured by two distinct processes, namely, from acetate of lime and by fermentation process; that both materials are identical; that they test on analysis exactly the same, and that it is impossible to tell the one from the other; that the former is not liable on importation to duty under Part I of the Safeguarding of Industries Act and that the latter is liable; and whether he can state how the liability to duty of such material when imported is determined?

Mr. BALDWIN: I am aware that acetone, as sold, may be made by either of the two processes mentioned. The practicability of determinative tests of origin is under consideration, but should these be shown to be non-existent, the liability or non-liability of imported
acetone to duty must be determined by such declaration by the importer as the Customs may deem sufficient.

Oral Answers to Questions — GENOA CONFERENCE.

Sir W. DAVISON: 25.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Russian Soviet Government have made a grant of 150,000 roubles to each of the Soviet delegates who are to attend the Genoa Conference for the purchase of suitable attire to wear during the said Conference; whether any grants out of public funds are being made to any of the British delegates or officials attending the Conference; and what is the estimated total charge on public funds in connection with the Conference, and on what Vote it will be borne?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. With regard to the second part, it is not anticipated that the charge will be great, as the British delegates are to be the guests of the Italian Government. Certain members of the subordinate staff attached to the British delegation are receiving a small outfit allowance of £15 each. The travelling and incidental expenses of the British delegation will be borne on the Vote for Diplomatic and Consular Services.

Sir W. DAVISON: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether this £2,000,000 that this Conference is costing the Italian Government will be set off against the debt of that Government to this country?

Mr. MILLS: Would the hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of accepting the red waistcoat of the hon. Member for West Kensington (Sir W. Davison) as part of the equipment on that occasion?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Is it not a fact that the present exchange is about a million and a half roubles to the £, and that, therefore, the clothing grant amounts to 1s. 11¾d.?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I am not in a position to answer the question of the hon. and learned Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison).

Sir W. DAVISON: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware, arising out of the question of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dartford (Mr. Mills), that a red
waistcoat is a recognised covering for a warm heart, while a red tie is a badge for a hot head?

Mr. L. MALONE: 39.
asked the Prime Minister what advisers, outside the official delegation, will be consulted by the British section at Genoa; what is their nationality; and what interests do they represent?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: A number of representatives of various commercial and financial interests have already been consulted in London. Should it prove necessary further advice will be sought during the Conference, but as to this I cannot speak definitely as yet.

Mr. RAPER: 43.
asked the Prime Minister whether, since the objection to the League of Nations being associated with the Genoa Conference has now disappeared, in view of the fact that the Government of the United States is not taking any active part and that Soviet Russia is participating in the Warsaw Health Conference at present being held under the auspices of the League of Nations, steps can even now be taken to associate the League of Nations with the Conference?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The House has already been informed that arrangements have been made to ensure that there will be at the disposal of the Conference such technical information as the League may possess and which may relate to the work of the Conference.

Mr. RAPER: 44.
asked the Prime Minister if he can now state the names of all the persons who will comprise the Russian delegation at the Genoa Conference?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no information beyond that which I communicated in my reply to my hon. Friend on the 13th March, except that M. Lenin does not appear to be included in the party, numbering 60, which has already left Russia for Genoa. The names of the nine other delegates referred to in my previous reply are as follow:

C. G. Rakovsky.
R. Narimanow.
F. G. Moivani.
A. A. Baczadaane.
F. Ehodjaef.
J. D. Janseof.
A. G. Schliapnikof.
T. V. Sapronof.
G. E. Raodsoutak.

Mr. RAPER: Will the right hon. Gentleman repeat the name of the last do legate?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think it would be more useful if I have it printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether all the countries entitled to appoint two delegates each to the Genoa Conference, namely, countries numbered five to 23, inclusive, in paragraph 2 of Sub-section (e) of the Cannes Resolution, have decided to attend the Conference and have appointed their delegates; and, if not, which of those States have not yet accepted or not yet appointed delegates?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The countries referred to have all intimated their intention to attend the Conference. Finland, Switzerland, Esthonia, Poland, Czecho-Slovakia, Latvia, Rumania, Jugoslavia and Greece have not, however, so far as I am aware, as yet appointed their delegates.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 48.
asked the Prime Minister how many meetings have been held by the Drafting Committee appointed by the Supreme Council, at its meeting held at 11 a.m. on Friday, 13th January, 1922, to draw up the detailed agenda and draft resolutions for the Genoa Conference; whether this Drafting Committee has now completed its labours; and whether the draft agenda and draft resolutions will be laid before both Houses of Parliament before 10th April?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Drafting Committee referred to was merged in the Conference of Experts which recently met in London and held 14 meetings; the experts have now completed their labours, and have reported to their several Governments. I understand that it is not proposed to publish the reports of the experts.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Is the agenda of the Conference going to be published before the Conference meets?

Oral Answers to Questions — SUPPLY (DAYS FOR DISCUSSION).

Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: 29.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the legislative programme before Parliament is exceedingly modest and that the nation's finances need the
closest attention, he will this year grant a substantial addition to the days devoted to Supply, over and above the 20 usually allocated?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I will do everything I can, consistently with the passage-of necessary legislation, to meet my hon. and gallant Friend's views.

Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: May we not have some statement a little more definite than that? Has not the Government the whole time of the House, and could not the right hon. Gentleman say that they will allocate, say, eight or nine more days, in view of the grave urgency of the national finances?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is mistaken in supposing that the Government have taken the whole of the time of the House. I want to give as much time as we can to supply.

Sir D. MACLEAN: May I ask the Leader of the House whether we can, at any rate, count upon the extra three days being granted, as provided by the Standing Orders?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is early in the Session to put a question of that kind. What I have in my mind is something more than the three days, but I cannot give a definite pledge.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL OFFICERS (PENSIONS).

Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: 30.
asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that in February, 1921, he was approached on the question of receiving a small deputatation on the subject of the pensions of retired naval officers who served during the War; that in July, 1921, a petition signed by 228 Members of this House was presented to him on the same question through the medium of an ex-First Lord of the Admiralty; and that since that date representations on the same lines have been made to him; and if he can now fix a date on which he can receive a deputation or give an indication of such a date?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend has been asked to receive a deputation on this subject, and he hopes to make the necessary arrangements to receive it on his return from the Genoa Conference.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

FAMINE RELIEF.

Mr. FOOT: 31.
asked the Prime Minister what contribution His Majesty's Government have actually made up to the present towards the needs of the starving peasants of South-East Russia: to what extent the contribution has been made up of stores; what form the stores have taken; and the several channels through which the contribution has been made?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The contribution made by His Majesty's Government towards famine relief in Russia consists wholly of stores to the present-day value of £200,000, as explained to the House of Commons in the two Supplementary Estimates presented respectively on 27th October, 1921, and on 23rd February, 1922. The stores consist mainly of foodstuffs, about £180,000 worth being food and the rest medical stores. The stores have been, or are being, handed over to the British Red Cross to be distributed by their agents in Russia in conjunction with the Russian Famine Relief Fund, the Society of Friends, and the Save the Children Fund for the relief of the, victims of the famine.

ARMY MOBILISATION.

Lieut. Colonel ARCHER SHEE: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that mobilisation on an extensive scale has been planned in Russia to take place before the summer; that all men born between 1891 and 1898 and in 1902 and 1903 are to be called to the colours, making 10 new classes of conscripts; that all ex-officers of the Russian army have been notified to be ready for immediate mobilisation; that such action is a grave menace to the states bordering on Soviet Russia: and whether he will represent to them that such action conflicts with Resolution A, paragraph 6, proposed by him and accepted by the Allies at Cannes?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No information is available to the effect that mobilisation on an extensive scale has been planned in Russia to take place before the summer. As regards the last part of the question, any representations on the subject would appear to be a matter for the Conference at Genoa.

PAPER CURRENCY.

Mr. LYLE: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Genoa Conference will take into consideration the continued depreciation of the Russian currency; whether he is aware that the Soviet printing presses are working day and night turning out paper money; and that, although truck-loads of notes are being sent away to new-destinations, it is found impossible to meet the existing demand?

Mr. YOUNG: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As to the second and third, I fear I have no information as to the arrangements adopted by the Soviet authorities.

Mr. LYLE: Will the Prime Minister, when he takes into consideration proposals for promoting trade with Russia, bear in mind the great possibilities of the British printing press makers?

BRITISH TRADE.

Lieut. Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: 52.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the export trade of this country to Old Russia in 1913 amounted to £18,100,000 in value, whereas in 1920 it amounted, approximately, to £12,000,000, or two-thirds of the pre-War trade in value; that this export trade in 1913 formed an insignificant portion of our total export-trade, namely, approximately 3 per cent.; whether he is aware that our imports from Old Russia in 1913 were £38,100,000, and in 1920 £31,200,000; that these imports in 1913 only constituted slightly over 5 per cent. of our total import trade; and, in view of the fact that we are now exporting to those countries of Old Russia which are free from Soviet rule two-thirds of the amount we formerly exported to the whole of Russia, and that we are importing from these countries about four-fifths of the amount that we imported from Old Russia, if he can state in what manner, and to what extent, he anticipates that our trade with Soviet Russia will increase by giving their Government official recognition?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think that the conclusions suggested in the question necessarily follow from the figures given. My hon. and gallant Friend appears to have overlooked the difference
between the purchasing power of the £ in 1013 and in 1920 in respect of goods exported or goods imported.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that the political recognition of Russia-will increase our trade? Is he aware that, although we have refused to recognise Mexico, our trade with that country has gone up enormously?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: These are questions which are matters for the Debate this afternoon rather than for answers to questions. With regard to the earlier part of the supplementary question, it would puzzle even my hon. and gallant Friend to derive that inference from anything I have said.

SOVIET GOVERNMENT (RECOGNITION).

Lieut. Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: 53.
asked the Prime Minister what guarantees it is proposed should be demanded from the Russian Government before the question of their recognition is discussed at the Genoa Conference, in view of the fact that, although the Russian Trade Agreement between this country and Russia was only signed one year ago, in which the Russian Government agreed to refrain from any propaganda directed against the British Empire, the Agreement has been broken on many occasions, to one of which the Foreign Secretary drew attention in his speech of 26th July, 1921, when he stated that the Soviet Minister at Teheran had since his arrival pursued the familiar Bolshevist methods, the exercise of ceaseless political propaganda: and, in view of these proofs of the worthlessness of any signed agreements with the Russians, can he give an assurance that the ultimate recognition of the Bolshevist Government will not be supported by the British Delegates except under a proviso that there shall be a probationary period of at least five years, during which any agreements come to with them are to be carried out without equivocation?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would ask my hon. and gallant Friend to await the Prime Minister's statement this afternoon.

SOVIET NAVY (BRITISH SUBJECTS).

Sir CHARLES OMAN: 82.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs what is the number of British officers and men now serving on board the "Lenin," ice-breaker, or other Soviet vessels in the Baltic; whether any of them are still connected with the British Service; and whether any efforts have been made to discourage the entry of British subjects into the Soviet Navy during the continuance of the existing relations between Great Britain and Russia?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I am informed that most of the 125 officers and men serving on the "Lenin" are British subjects. None are now connected with His Majesty's Service. The behaviour of some of them at various ports in the Baltic has been highly discreditable in many respects. I am glad to have this opportunity of stating that His Majesty's Government have no responsibility of any kind for them and no means of influencing them. I have no information as to the officers and crews of other Soviet vessels in the Baltic

Sir C. OMAN: Is it part of the duty of the British Government to discourage British subjects from entering into this service or not?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will advise me how that can best be done.

Mr. RAPER: Do any of these men hold British passports?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I could not say.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCES.

Sir ROBERT CLOUGH: 32.
asked the Prime Minister whether, during negotiations at Genoa, he will bear in mind the general wish of people in this country for some sort of finality in regard to the holding of these conferences; and will he, in addition, attempt to secure some sort of practical result to conferences already held before the country is committed to embark on others?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer is in the affirmative.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN DISTRESS (BRITISH RELIEF).

Mr. LYLE: 33.
asked the Prime Minister the sums spent by the Government in
relieving distress in countries outside the British Empire since the beginning of 1919?

Mr. YOUNG: I would refer the hon. Member to the statement on this subject made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House in presenting a Supplementary Estimate for £100,000 for Russian Famine Relief on the 17th March. The figures given in this statement may be summarised as follow:—



£


Loans to Belgium for Relief and Reconstruction
15,000,000


First British Relief Credit
12,500,000


Second British Relief Credit
10,000,000


Other Relief Expenditure
16,500,000


Total
£54,000,000


These amounts are in addition to the Export Credits (£26,000,000) and guarantees under the Trade Facilities Act (£25,000,000).

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERSEAS SETTLEMENT.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: 34.
asked the Prime Minister when he will introduce the Bill in reference to schemes of settlement over seas, which was announced in the Gracious Speech from the Throne?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I hope this Bill will be introduced before the House adjourns for Easter.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEXICO.

Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: 35.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will call for information from the proper quarter as to the conditions now prevailing in Mexico and as to the possibility of successful British trade there?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I have been asked to reply. I stated in my replies to my hon. and gallant Friend and to the hon. Member for Wednesbury on the 30th and 27th March the steps which have been taken in this connection, and I shall continue to obtain and circulate to traders information of the kind referred to in my replies.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that our import trade with Mexico has gone up by 600 per cent. since 1913 and our export trade has doubled in that period?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: In that period, of course, values have to be taken into account. I think the improvement in British trade is very satisfactory.

Mr. WILLIAM YOUNG: 42.
asked the Prime Minister whether hr is aware that the continued refusal of the British Government to grant recognition to the existing constitutionally elected Government of the Republic of Mexico is causing grave harm and prejudice to British interests and British trade in that country; that there is no properly accredited representative of Great Britain in that country; and whether he will at once take steps to remedy the existing condition of affairs by consulting Members of this House who are capable and willing to give disinterested advice to the Government in regard to the position in Mexico?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I cannot usefully add anything to the numerous statements on this subject which I have made recently.

Mr. W. YOUNG: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that not long ago the Mexican Government requested the removal of the present British representative in Mexico; whether he considers that this is advantageous to the position of our trade and commerce in that country; and will he state definitely how long our policy there is to be subservient to the policy of the United States?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is making a speech. This matter was debated in the House only two days ago.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRAZIL.

Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: 36.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the desirability of approaching the Brazilian Government with a view to a trade agreement, having regard to the preferential tariffs now given by Brazil to the United States of America and to Belgium, and to the prestige enjoyed by this country in Latin America?

Mr. BALDWIN: I have been asked to reply. This matter has had very careful consideration, but I do not think that any useful purpose would at present be served by approaching the Brazilian Government, whom I have no reason to suppose to be less reluctant than in the past to extend to this country the benefits of the special preferences accorded to the United States and Belgium.

Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: Is the right hon. Gentleman taking any steps to ascertain the desirability of making some further provision in this direction which will not preclude any concession being given to us which has already been given to the United States and to Belgium?

Oral Answers to Questions — MINERS, CORNWALL.

Sir J. D. REES: 37.
asked the Prime Minister what contribution His Majesty's Government have actually made up to the present towards the needs of the distressed miners of South-East Cornwall; to what extent the contribution has been made up of stores; what form the stores have taken; and through what several channels the contribution has been made?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Alfred Mond): Grants have been made by the Government towards public works carried out by local authorities in the district. I may refer in this connection to the reply given to the hon. Member for Bodmin on the 15th ultimo. If the hon. Baronet has some other form of assistance in mind, and will let me know, I will communicate further with him.

Sir J. D. REES: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to see that in any future charitable distribution distress in South-East Cornwall shall have preference over distress in Russia?

Sir A. MOND: I do not think that arises out of the question on the paper.

Mr. FOOT: Is the hon. Baronet the Member for East Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees) aware that the miners out of work in Cornwall are not in South-East Cornwall at all?

Oral Answers to Questions — FAR EASTERN REPUBLIC.

Mr. MALONE: 38.
asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government has received a Note from the Government, of the Far Eastern Republic protesting against Japanese aid to the White forces; and what action it is proposed to take?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. His Majesty's Government do not propose to take any action. In this connection I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by me to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull on the 9th March.

Mr. MALONE: 85.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government is aware that the negotiations which began at Dairen in September, 1921, between the Governments of the Far Eastern Republic and Japan have ended in a deadlock; and what action His Majesty's Government intend to take?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: His Majesty's Government are aware that these negotiations took place, but have no information that they ended in a deadlock. It is not proposed to take any action.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENGINEERING AND SHIPBUILDING TRADE DISPUTE.

Mr. MILLS: 51.
asked the Prime Minister if his attention has been drawn to the existing dispute in the engineering trade; whether he is aware that, at a time when 90,000 engineers are receiving State aid because of lack of orders in the workshops of Britain, the employers claim the right to work an employé many hours over the normal working week; and whether the Government propose to take any action in this matter?

Mr. JOHN DAVISON: 27
asked the Prime Minister (1) whether he is aware of the conditions laid down by the Engineering and Shipbuilding Employers' Federations before any resumption of negotiations can take place with the trades unions concerned in the present lock-out; whether, since the policy of the Engineering and Shipbuilding Employers' Federations will inflict great injury upon national interests in those industries and incite a continuance of industrial strife
in the future, he can state if it is the intention of the Government to intervene to prevent a prolongation of the lock-out; whether he will institute a committee of inquiry in accordance with Part II of the Industrial Courts Act; whether he will advise a truce in the lock-out pending the findings of such a committee;
(2) whether it is the intention of the Government to intervene, under Part II of the Industrial Courts Act, with a view to terminating the present lock-out in the engineering, shipbuilding, and allied industries?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Dr. Macnamara): I have been asked to reply. With regard to the engineering dispute, I was able to arrange on Saturday a meeting between the employers' representatives and the Mediating Committee as a result of which a proposal has been submitted to a conference of representatives of the trade unions to-day. Discussion on this proposal is proceeding and I think that it would be inadvisable for me to make any further statement at the moment. In the case of the shipbuilding dispute, the result of the ballot has not yet been announced, and pending that I do not think I can make a statement on the future course of events.

Mr. MILLS: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to set up a committee of inquiry under Part II of the Industrial Courts Act, in view of the widespread opinion in the Press and of various writers that the action of the engineering employers is comparable with that of Bolshevist capitalists?

Oral Answers to Questions — ALLOTMENTS (BILLS).

Mr. NEWBOULD: 55.
asked the Lord Privy Seal when he proposes to introduce the promised legislation dealing with allotments?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As I stated on the 23rd March, I hope that the Bill will be introduced before Easter, either here or in another place. There will be a separate Bill for Scotland.

Oral Answers to Questions — CANADIAN CATTLE EMBAEGO.

Mr. WILLIAM SHAW: 57.
asked the Lord Privy Seal if he can now arrange to give the House an early opportunity of discussing the Canadian cattle embargo question; and whether he will leave the decision as to the removal of the embargo to a free vote of the House?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot find time for such a discussion before Easter, but I will try to arrange an opportunity soon after the Recess for discussion on a Motion by my hon. Friend or some other private Member. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative.

Mr. SHAW: Will the decision be left to the free vote of the House?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg pardon I overlooked the latter part of the question. If a Motion be put down, we will leave it to the free vote of the House, and not put on the Government Whips.

Mr. SHAW: Seeing that the Government have already altered their policy on this question quite recently, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that they will not alter it again between now and the putting down of the Motion?

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION),

Mr. C. WHITE: 68.
asked the President of the Board of Education what, up to the present, is the total amount of the lump sums, additional to pension, paid to teachers who have retired under the Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1918, since it began to operate on 1st April, 1919; and what is the number of the teachers who have received these additional lump sums?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): Up to the 31st December, 1921, the total amount of the "lump sums" awarded under the Act of 1918 is £1,569,286; and the number of teachers concerned, 6,241.

Mr. C. WHITE: 69.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether all teachers who served under the Superannuation Acts of 1898 and 1912 had the right, on approaching the retiring age, 65, to make application for extension of
service and to have it submitted to and considered by the Board of Education; how many such applications made by teachers during the year ended 31st March, 1918, and that of 31st March, 1919, were; not submitted to or considered by the Board of Education, with the result that the applicants were compulsorily retired at 65 on a pension of about £40, average amount; how many similar applications, made during the same years by teachers similarly circumstanced, were submitted to and considered by the Board, with the result that the applicants had extension granted them and were thus made eligible for and admitted to the benefits of the 1918 Act; and what compensation he proposes to make to those teachers who have sustained heavy loss in consequence of the withholding of their applications for extension from the consideration of the Board of Education?

Mr. FISHER: As regards the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to Section 1 (2, a) of the Elementary School Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1898. It has been the practice of the Board not to entertain applications for extension unless they are supported by the local education authorities or managers in whose service the teachers concerned are employed. I cannot undertake the laborious investigation which would be required for the whole of England and Wales to enable me to answer the second and third parts of the question.

Mr. MOSLEY: 74.
asked the President of the Board of Education the estimated initial and continuing cost of giving administrative effect to the recommendations of the Geddes Committee for putting teachers pensions on a contributory basis?

Mr. FISHER: I presume the hon. Member refers to the cost of the additional staff that would be required for administering a superannuation scheme on a contributory basis. It is impossible to estimate what staff would be necessary for this purpose except in relation to the terms of any Measure which receives the approval of Parliament.

ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS.

Mr. MILLS: 70.
asked the President of the Board of Education if he is aware that many hundreds of children are being
excluded from the elementary schools in the North-West Kent area and that classes are being increased in size; and what action he proposes to take in view of the Government's attitude as expressed lately?

Mr. FISHER: I have no reason to suppose that any children are being excluded from school for whom the local education authority are bound to make provision, or that the efficiency of the schools is being impaired by increase of the size of classes.

Mr. MILLS: Will the right hon. Gentleman take action if I bring to his notice evidence of dismissal of teachers concurrently with increase of numbers in classes in the elementary schools of Kent?

Mr. FISHER: Certainly.

Mr. GRUNDY: 72.
asked the President of the Board of Education how many schools have been closed, how many scholars prevented from attending or refused admittance to the elementary schools, and how many teachers dismissed during February and March of this year by the English education authorities?

Mr. FISHER: The number of public elementary schools in England which were closed during February and March of this year, including those for which the date of closure was 31st March, is 12. The number of scholars on the rolls of these schools was about 611. In all these cases other accommodation was available for the children concerned. The Board have no information of the number of teachers whose engagements are from time to time terminated by local education authorities or school managers.

DAY CONTINUATION SCHOOLS.

Sir W. JOYNS0N-HICKS: 73.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he will obtain returns from the local education authorities who have ceased to maintain day continuation schools on a compulsory basis as to the number now in attendance, and as to the cost per head?

Mr. FISHER: The authorities concerned are Birmingham and West Ham. In the former area day continuation schools have been maintained on a basis of voluntary attendance since 1st April,
1921, and I will endeavour to obtain figures both of attendance and cost as soon as possible. In West Ham the schools were conducted for part of the year on a basis of obligatory attendance and for the rest on a voluntary basis, and a good deal of analysis would be required to answer the hon. Baronet's question. The cost per student enrolled would in any case be a misleading figure, and a better standard would be the cost per student-day of attendance. In the week ending 31st March the number enrolled was 718, the average amount of attendance in the week for each student being about two days.

Mr. W. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, so far as West Ham is concerned, the reason for the discontinuance of the day schools was the hostility of the employers in the borough?

Mr. FISHER: No, Sir, I am not aware of that.

Mr. HOPKINS: 75.
asked the President of the Board of Education what action he proposes to take in regard to the continuation schools in London, the abolition of which was urged by the large majority of successful candidates at the recent London County Council elections?

Mr. FISHER: I understand that the newly-elected Council have under consideration the question of their policy in regard to day continuation schools. I do not propose to anticipate their decision.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Is it a fact that a large number of employers in the London area are engaging young persons from outside the area, so as to avoid the inconvenience of losing their services on certain afternoons in the week; and will he, therefore, either do away with this system in London, or else extend it to the outlying districts as well?

Mr. FISHER: I am awaiting a report from the London County Council. I understand that the London County Council have asked for a report from their education committee, and, until the facts are before me, obviously I cannot take any action.

INFANT CLASSES.

Colonel NEWMAN: 76.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether, in the event of the Government deciding
to retain the present commencing age for elementary education, he will consider what economy could be effected by placing infant classes in charge of a motherly person and releasing highly-trained teachers drawing full salaries for the supervision of more senior classes?

Mr. FISHER: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer given on the 13th March to the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Essex (Lieut.-Colonel Hilder).

Colonel NEWMAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman now agree that these infant classes want nursing rather than highly trained teaching?

Viscountess ASTOR: Should not that be left to the mothers?

Oral Answers to Questions — REGISTRATION OF BUSINESS NAMES ACT.

Mr. FOOT: 65.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the operation of the Registration of Business Names Act involves the Treasury in an annual loss; if so, what is the extent of this annual loss; and whether he will consider the advantage of terminating this registration by the repeal of the Act or other wise?

Mr. BALDWIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The deficit for the year 1921 amounted to £3,383. The Government propose to introduce legislation which will enable the fees to be increased, so that this service may be rendered self-supporting.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

ROYALTY RENTS AND WAYLEAVES, YORKSHIRE.

Mr. LUNN: 66.
asked the Secretary for Mines what was the total amount paid in royalty rents and wayleaves from the whole of the mines in Yorkshire for the quarter ending 31st March, 1921; what was the average amount per ton and how much of this sum was assessable for local rates; and what was the total tonnage of minerals raised during the same period in the county, and the percentage of such amount raised from mines where the mining companies owned the land?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Bridgeman): The total amount paid in royalty rents and wayleaves from the whole of the mines in Yorkshire for the quarter ended 31st March, 1921, was £193,275, and the average amount per ton disposable commercially was 5½d. The total quantity of coal raised during the same period was 9,323,000 tons, but the tonnage raised from mines where the mining companies owned the land cannot be separately stated. Royalty rents and wayleaves are not assessable for local rates in Yorkshire.

MINERS' BETTERMENT, SOUTH YORKSHIRE.

Major KELLEY: 67.
aked the Secretary for Mines what sum has been set aside for miners' betterment in South Yorkshire; how many schemes have been proposed for that area under the betterment provisions of the Mining Industries Act; and what schemes have been approved in South Yorkshire?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The total amount at present set aside for local purposes in the South Yorkshire district is £57,083. So far the miners' welfare committee have received nine applications for grants in connection with local schemes in the district, and these have been referred for report to the joint district welfare committee of owners and workmen. I understand, however, that the district welfare committee are still engaged upon a survey of the requirements of the district as a whole, and have not as yet recommended any schemes to the miners' welfare committee. No grants have, therefore, been made in this district up to the present.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

BRITISH TUG "UPNOR" (PIRATICAL CAPTURE).

Colonel NEWMAN: 64.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the capture of a British-owned tug by supposed members of the Irish Republican party at Queenstown; its disappearance to sea and subsequent recapture by the naval sloop "Heather"; has he any reasons to give for the occurrence; and to whom have those found on board the tug and not members of the crew been handed over for custody?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Churchill): I must ask the indulgence of the House to permit me to make a full answer to this question. The facts of this incident have appeared in an exaggerated form. The vessel in question (the "Upnor") contained under 400 rifles, and not 20,000 as I have seen stated. There were in addition 700 revolvers and 39 machine guns, about half a million rounds of rifle ammunition, and certain other naval stores, including a small quantity of explosives. These munitions were being transported by the Admiralty from Haul-bowline Dockyard to Devonport in the usual way. The "Upnor" was piratically captured upon the high seas by a gang of Republican conspirators hostile to the Provisional Government who had previously seized a tug in Queenstown Harbour. The "Upnor" was taken to Ballycottin, about ten or fifteen miles from Queenstown, where the greater part of the arms and munitions on board were unloaded. At the same time about a hundred motor lorries were commandeered by the anti-Treaty Republicans in Cork and brought to Ballycottin Bay with several hundred men. The munitions and arms stolen from the "Upnor" were removed in these lorries, about sixty of which returned empty.
As soon as the British naval authorities were aware of what was taking place, one of His Majesty's ships proceeded in search of the "Upnor," and found her in Ballycottin Bay. The Republican raiders had dispersed on the news of the British warship leaving Queenstown, but the local population were engaged in looting the contents of the vessel.
The incident is a very serious one. It constitutes a gross and dishonourable breach of the truce. I must remind the House that the truce was entered into, not with the Provisional Government alone, but with the duly elected representatives of the Irish people, who were and are parties to it. The fact that such an elaborate conspiracy could be set on foot in Cork without the Provisional Government obtaining any previous or even early information of it shows that their control over Cork and this district is practically non-existent. This is all the more remarkable in a city in which opinion has overwhelmingly declared itself on the side of the Treaty.
I am communicating with the Provisional Government in this sense. At the same time, I am bound to admit that an inalienable responsibility rests upon the British Government to safeguard in all circumstances arms and munitions of war which are in their hands. The Admiralty are instituting an inquiry into the circumstances, with a view to ascertaining whether any neglect of reasonable precautions has occurred, and I need scarcely say that naval escorts will be employed in future in regard to all movements of munitions from Ireland by sea.

Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: Are the military authorities in Ireland now taking extra precautions to see that arms and ammunition belonging to the troops are not stolen from the troops in barracks?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir, the most stringent precautions are being taken, as they were before the occurrence of this incident.

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this conspiracy was discussed in certain clubs in London last week, and how is it that officials of the Government, or their Intelligence Department, were not in a position to acquaint them with what was going to happen?

Mr. CHURCHILL: If my hon. and gallant Friend will give me information now indicating what persons had previous knowledge of this, I will take it up at once.

Rear-Admiral Sir R. HALL: Will adequate naval precautions be taken to protect passenger ships going into Queenstown or other ports, so that they may not be piratically raided?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not think there is much danger of that.

Sir W. DAVISON: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's statement that a state of anarchy reigns in Cork, what steps are the British Government, who are responsible, now taking, the Provisional Government having no powers?

Mr. CHURCHILL: My statement was not that there was a state of anarchy in Cork. On the contrary, the great bulk of the daily life of Cork is proceeding in an ordinary, orderly manner, and the over-
whelming mass of the population are believed to be on the side of the Treaty. There is no doubt, however, that there is very lax control over the actions of the mutineers against the authority of the Provisional Government.

Mr. W. THORNE: Are you aware that there is a member of the anarchist crowd in this House?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Apart altogether from any action of the Free State, what steps are this Government taking to recover their own property and bring these pirates to justice? Have they no power?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not think it would be useful for me to make any statement about that.

ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY (DISBANDMENT).

Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: (by Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether it is intended that every member of the Royal Irish Constabulary shall be disbanded without exception, whether he is serving in Northern or in Southern Ireland, and, if so, on what terms will the men be disbanded, and by what date will the disbandment be complete?

The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Sir Hamar Greenwood): Yes, Sir; the intention is that every member of the Force, wherever he is serving, shall be disbanded. That disbandment, which has already commenced, will be completed by 31st May. Meanwhile the Force will remain an Imperial Force, and will not be transferred to either of the Irish Governments. The terms upon which disbandment are to take place will be shown in a White Paper, dated 30th March, to be laid on the Table of the House.

Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into special consideration men of over 30 years' service who, I understand, are left out of any special consideration? They were the men who remained in the Force to train recruits during the past few years.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: When the terms of disbandment are seen, I am sure that every right hon. and hon. Member will agree that the terms are generous, and better than those which the Act of 1920 contemplated.

Mr. D. HERBERT: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any idea as to when the White Paper will be issued?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: It will be on the Table of the House this week. I hope to-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — BELGIUM (NEUTRALITY).

Sir ARTHUR FELL: 84.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the Treaty of London of 1839 under which the neutrality and inviolability of Belgium was guaranteed by the principal European Powers is still in force, at any rate so far as this country is concerned, or is the integrity of Belgium only guaranteed by France under a new Treaty at the present time?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. So far as His Majesty's Government are aware, the integrity of Belgium is not guaranteed by France under any treaty. The hon. Member is doubtless thinking of the military agreement which has been concluded between the two Powers to meet the eventuality of future aggression by Germany.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURAL COMMITTEES (EXPENSES).

Mr. C. PERCY: 87.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the total amount of Government grants made, or to be made, for the year 1921 to county councils or otherwise in respect of the travelling or other expenses of members of agricultural committees?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Complete accounts are not yet available, but it is estimated that the expenditure on travelling and subsistence expenses of members of county agricultural committees repayable by the Ministry will not exceed £3,000. I may add that as from the 1st instant no further grants from public funds will be made for this purpose.

Oral Answers to Questions — MILK.

Mr. HURD: 90.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he can state, on the basis of statistics gathered by his Department and the late Ministry
of Food, what is the probable average cost per gallon of producing milk during the six coming summer months, respectively, in the south-western counties, that is to say, the net cost at the farms exclusive both of profit and of charges for collection and transport?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: No, Sir, I have no statistics available which would justify me in making such an estimate and it would have little value if made, since the main items composing it must obviously be conjectural.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

RAILWAY STATIONS (SOUTH-EAST LONDON).

Mr. BOWERMAN: 77.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport if he is aware that several railway stations in the south-eastern district of London still remain closed, although the original plea of the companies that their closing was the result of the shortage of labour no longer holds good; and whether, as such station closing is a breach of the powers granted by Parliament, he will urge upon the companies the desirability of reopening the stations in the interests of traders and work people?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Neal): The reply to the first part is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, I am informed that the railway companies do not accept the view that they are under any such legal obligation as that stated by my right hon. Friend.

PASSENGER FARES.

Mr. LYLE: 78.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport whether he has made, or intends to make, any representations to the railway companies, both overhead and underground, in favour of reduction of their fares, in view of the decrease in the cost of living and in the rate of payment of labour?

Mr. NEAL: I have recently been in communication with the railway companies, and am informed that they have before them numerous applications for the reduction of railway rates and charges, and that these are receiving consideration. So far as the underground companies are concerned, I have closely in
mind the provisions of Section 6 of the London Electric Railway Companies (Fares, etc.) Act, 1920.

MASSACRES AND OUTRAGES, NEAR EAST.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: (by Private Notice) asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the telegram from the Patriarch of Constantinople to the Archbishop of Canterbury in which he states that on 25th February 20 Greek villages were destroyed by fire in the region of Kerassunde, in the Pontus, by the order of Osman Agha, Major of Kerassunde and Kemalist military commander, and on 1st March the villages of Beislan, Pozat, Topekeny, and Kiavourhiki were also burned down, the inhabitants—consisting only of women and children—who were previously imprisoned in the houses, having completely perished in the flames, and whether adequate steps have been taken at the recent Paris Conference to ensure the protection of Christians in the Pontus and other regions in the Near East, and to put an end to these horrible massacres?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part, while at present no definite decision can be announced, my hon. Friend may rest assured that the arrangements drawn up in Paris, in consultation with the competent military authorities, provide for the presence of Allied officers in the areas mentioned, for the object of preventing massacres and other outrages. Until, however, the Turkish reply is received, no pressure can be exercised other than the public opinion of the civilised world.

Mr. MILLS: Is there any intention of carrying out the terms of our pledged word to Armenia during the War to reserve a portion of Armenia from Turkish sovereignty?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The hon. Member has no doubt seen the statement issued in connection with the Paris Conference.

Mr. O'CONNOR: May I ask the Leader of the House whether an opportunity will
be given to the House of Commons to have put before it the results of the Paris Conference on the Near East, and for a discussion to follow of the same character as that which took place in the House of Lords last week?

Sir J. D. REES: Will the hon. Gentleman have a care lest these questions, which are asked to prejudice the Turkish cause at a critical moment, are discussed in this House, and is it not better that these timely massacres should be left to investigation? [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"]

Sir J. D. REES: I beg to withdraw the word "timely."

Mr. SPEAKER: I have already more than once had occasion to reprove the hon. Baronet for introducing insinuations into supplementary questions. I must tell him and other hon. Members that I shall take the strongest stand against that misuse of the opportunity of asking supplementary questions.

Sir J. D. REES: I withdraw the word "timely," which was used in the sense of "occasional."

Mr. O'CONNOR: May I not appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, as the guardian of the liberties and the honour of this House, to make a declaration that the adjective and the idea just set forth by the hon. Baronet are a base misrepresentation of the feeling of this House?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Baronet's use of English is unusual. The word "timely" as he used it, I am sure, would shock the conscience of the whole House.

Sir J. D. REES: May I point out that it is invariably the case that whenever the Turk and Greek question comes up, a massacre is at that moment reported—a massacre which may not have happened at that particular time? I intended—

Mr. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Baronet had better keep a little more control over his tongue.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: May I now answer the question put to me by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool? I am afraid that the only opportunity I can offer before Easter is on the Motion for the Adjournment for the Easter Recess.

Mr. O'CONNOR: Is it not an intolerable outrage upon the liberties and rights of this House that, while a full-dress Debate and a full statement on a great international transaction are given to the House of Lords, the House of Commons should be deprived of a like opportunity of discussing such an important matter?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If we had no more business to do than the other House, and if we did the business we have to do as expeditiously, it would be much easier for me to provide opportunities for discussions that are demanded. My hon. Friend will know that not infrequently it happens that one House has a discussion when either the other House does not think one necessary, or does not find it convenient to have one at the same time. I do not think that in the statement made by my Noble Friend in another place there was any large addition to the information already before this House and the country.

Mr. MILLS: Will the Leader of the House give a promise that after the Easter Recess a day will be available for debate, for obviously on the Motion for Adjournment any hon. Member can raise any subject whatever?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is why the Motion for the Adjournment for Easter is a good opportunity for raising this subject. Should the subject not be raised then, it is always possible to put down the Foreign Office Vote after Easter, if there be a responsible demand from the proper quarters, and to take the discussion then.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. CLYNES: Has the Leader of the House any announcement to make as to a re-arrangement of the business for this week?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If the Unemployment Insurance Bill passes through Committee by Wednesday, the Report stage and Third Reading will be taken on Thursday instead of Supply. It is very important that that Bill should receive the Royal Assent before Easter. It will be necessary to complete the other Orders on the Paper during this week, so that they also can go to another place in time
to be considered before Easter. I therefore propose to make up the Supply Day which we lose on Thursday by taking two days next week, Monday and Tuesday.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: Will the Summer Time Bill be taken this week?

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.

Mr. HOGGE: On a point of Order. I wish, Mr. Speaker, to ask the reasons, if you will be kind enough to give them, why I was refused permission to put the following question by private notice—

Mr. SPEAKER: No, no. The hon. Member tries to evade my ruling. The reason why I disallowed the question which the hon. Member was about to read was its want of an urgent nature. I did not think it came within the category of urgent questions. It related to an event in 1919, and so far as relevant to the present day it could be raised in the Debate this afternoon.

Mr. HOGGE: I will not read the question if you do not desire it, but I wish to draw your attention to the fact that the question did not relate to 1919, but related to to-day's Debate, and if the question is to be disallowed on the ground that it is not urgent, why was the last question allowed relating to this very matter, the disbandment of the Irish Constabulary, which could have been put down on the Paper for Tuesday.

Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member desires to challenge my action in the Chair he must adopt the proper procedure for doing so.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.

GEORGE BANTON, Esquire, for the Borough of Leicester (East Division)

FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS (BAKEHOUSES) BILL,

"to prohibit nightwork in bakehouses; and for purposes connected therewith," presented by Lieut.-Colonel ASSHETON POWNALL; supported by Sir Alfred Yeo and Mr. Seddon; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 11th April, and to be printed. [Bill 78.]

Orders of the Day — GENOA CONFERENCE.

VOTE OF CONFIDENCE.

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): I beg to move
That this House approves the Resolutions passed by the Supreme Council at Cannes as the basis of the Genoa Conference, and will support His Majesty's Government in endeavouring to give effect to them.
4.0 P.M.
Perhaps the House will permit me to thank it for the very kind indulgence which it has extended to me during the short period of enforced rest that I have been endeavouring to enjoy. I am afraid that I was pelted with crises during that period, but the House seems to have taken no part in that new form of popular entertainment.
The Motion which I have the honour to move is very much in the same character as the Resolution which was moved for the Washington Conference. It gives the House an opportunity of approving of the objects, the purposes, and the delegates of the Genoa Conference. It also affords the House an opportunity of disapproving of either one, two, or three. I have been informed in quarters where I get all the information about these things—I mean the Press—that this Motion is not the original Motion which I submitted to the judgment of my colleagues, but that it has been completely transformed, or, as it is called, revised. As a matter of fact, it is exactly the Motion which I suggested a fortnight ago, and my colleagues were good enough to accept it in the very form in which I submitted it on that occasion. There are conflicting criticisms of this proposal, and, judging by the variety, I may say the infinite variety, of the Amendments which have been tabled, some critics suggest that it goes too far, and there are other and more numerous critics who suggest that it does not go far enough. Probably they both agree that the particular delegation to go to Genoa is not one which will meet acceptance. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] That shows that I am very fairly interpreting the criticisms of my opponents. If the Motion be defeated for
any reason, whether it is because the purpose of the Conference is not accepted, or because the policy or the principles laid down do not meet with the approval of the House, or because, perhaps, the House of Commons would prefer that there should be another delegation to represent this country at Genoa, then it will be equivalent to a vote of no confidence in the Government.
Why has the Conference been summoned? The issues involved—the principles or purposes—are set forth in great detail in the Cannes Papers which have been circulated to the House and which Members have had a full opportunity of perusing; in fact, there is nothing that I can say which will add to the information contained in those documents, and I am not sure that I can do anything to elucidate them. The Conference has been called to consider the problem of the reconstruction of economic Europe, devastated and broken into fragments by the devastating agency of war. Europe, the richest of all continents, the continent which possesses the largest amount of accumulated wealth and certainly the greatest machinery for the production of wealth, the largest aggregate of human beings with highly civilised needs and with highly civilised means of supplying those needs, and therefore Europe, the best customer in the world and of the world, has been impoverished by the greatest destruction of capital that the world has ever witnessed. If European countries had gathered together their mobile wealth accumulated by centuries of industry and thrift on to one pyramid and then set fire to it, the result could hardly have been more complete. International trade has been disorganised through and through. The recognised medium of commerce, exchange based upon currency, has become almost worthless and unworkable; vast areas, upon which Europe has hitherto depended for a large proportion of its food supplies and its raw material, completely destroyed for all purposes of commerce. Nations, instead of cooperating to restore, are broken up by suspicions and creating difficulties and new artificial restrictions. Great armies are ready to march, and nations already over-burdened with taxation have to bear the additional taxation which the maintenance of these huge armaments to avoid suspected dangers render necessary.
Genoa has been summoned to examine the best method of restoring order out of this welter and recovering prosperity out of this desolation. The purposes are very fully set forth in the document, and, if hon. Members have got their copies with them, I would specially call their attention to the Press notice on page 7, which was issued officially by the Conference, and which was very carefully prepared by Ministers and experts, every word of it being very thoroughly considered. There they will find the purposes of this Conference fully and carefully set forth categorically and in detail—
The first condition, which is of prime importance in the reconstruction of Europe, is to establish the relations of all the countries on the basis of a stable and enduring peace.
Then it proceeds to point out the financial measures that are necessary to meet the abnormal financial conditions in Europe, due to debased and inflated currency and due to the breakdown of exchanges. The question of the position and status of central banks and banks of issue, the question of public and private credit, the question of transport, the question of restrictions, the provision of technical and expert assistance which is to be given to countries—they are all set forth in very great detail in that particular document.
Before I come to dwell, I will not say upon all these points, because that would be utterly impossible, but upon the principal objects of the Conference, I should like to preface my statement by a reference to the limitations imposed upon the scope of the Conference. I say so, because, as far as I can see, the official Amendment challenges more particularly, not the object of the Conference, but the scope of the Conference. The objection to the Cannes Resolutions is not due to what we are seeking to achieve, not to the fact that we have invited all the nations of Europe there, but to the fact that there are certain limitations upon the scope of the discussions, and the hon. Gentlemen who are associated with the Mover of that Amendment object to those limitations. As those limitations are very important, I think that I had better dispose of them first.
Let me say at once—and I will say this because I observe that last week there
were certain questions pressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith), whose absence I regret, with regard to what passed between the French Prime Minister and myself at Boulogne, and I understand that it is inferred that new limitations were introduced at the Boulogne Conversations. That is not the case. There were no fresh limitations introduced at all. The limitations hon. Members will find embodied in this document—
Without injury to existing Treaties.
It is all summarised in that phrase. Those were not Boulogne limitations. They were introduced at Cannes; in fact, it would have been quite impossible to get from the Allied Powers a unanimous invitation to a conference unless those limitations had been introduced, and I think they are just. I do not believe that such a body as is summoned to meet at Genoa could properly consider the revision of existing Treaties, even assuming that it is desirable. Take the two great questions which affect the economic position of Europe, the two great questions embodied in the Treaty, questions around which controversy and criticism always reign. One is the question of boundaries, the fact that Europe has been re-arranged and re-organised and that its economic units have been broken up. And the second is the question of reparations. That is a very common criticism of the Treaties. Let me just point out in one or two sentences what the rearrangement of the boundaries of Europe involved. In the main they were—Alsace-Lorraine restored to France, which played a very considerable part from the economic point of view; Poland resurrected. Instead of being divided between three great empires it became an independent national unit; and in the third place there was the recognition of the independence of the Slavonic population of Austro-Hungary.
Those were the three great changes made by the Treaties. Latvia, Lithuania and Esthonia were arrangements made between Russia and her own subject States. Is there one of those provisions that any section of the House could wish to go back upon? Would they wish to restore Alsace-Lorraine to Germany? Would they wish again to tear up Poland? Would they wish to take away the independence of Czecho Slovakia and of Jugo
Slavia? If not, it is no use criticising the Treaty of Versailles or the Treaty of St Germain, because they readjusted the boundaries of Europe, unless you are prepared at the same time to say it was an unjust distribution of Europe. But there is no doubt that these changes added a new economic complication. The moment you create a new national unit it is the desire of that unit that it should be a fiscal unit, that it should become an economic unit, and that undoubtedly has added one of the most serious complications to the economic situation of Europe. But obviously the Genoa Conference is not the place to enter into a revision of boundaries which have been set up by treaties of that kind.
I come to another limitation which has been urged with greater force than the one about boundaries. That is the question of reparations. The trouble in Europe has been attributed largely to the reparations exacted by the Treaties of 1919. May I just say that those Treaties did not create the reparations. The trouble is due to the fact not that you are exacting reparations, but that there is something to repair. If you alter the Treaty of Versailles you do not wipe out reparations. You simply transfer the burden of them from Germany to France, and to this country, as well as to Belgium, but, in the main, to France. You would transfer the burden from the 60,000,000 of people responsible for the devastation to the 40,000,000 who were the victims of the devastation. So it is no use criticising reparations and saying that this gigantic debt of reparations is what is responsible for the economic disorganisation of Europe. The point is—is the damage there? Has it to be made up? Who is to pay it? If Germany does not pay, France and England and Belgium must pay.
I admit that there is a difference, and a very considerable difference, between the payment of external debt and the payment of internal obligations, and there are two considerations, undoubtedly, which ought to be borne in mind when you come to deal with the problem of reparations. The first is, that if we insist now upon payments beyond the power of a war-exhausted country, it would precipitate a crisis which would be by no means confined to Germany. The second consideration is this, that
Germany's ultimate capacity to pay must not be judged by her capacity at this moment when, in common with the rest of Europe, she is struggling to recover from the exhaustion of war. Those are two considerations which must be taken into account whenever you judge the problem of reparations, but neither of these questions can properly be dealt with at Genoa. They ought to be judged by the machinery of the Treaty, which is very elastic. France could not possibly forgo the right that she has won at so much cost to have an adjudication in accordance with the Treaty, and I do not believe that it would be fair to ask her to forgo it. She certainly could not be expected to submit to the judgment of a Conference where, not merely Germany, Austria, Hungary and Russia, but also neutrals, some of whom during the War did not indicate that they had very much sympathy with France, and, at any rate, it would be unfair to ask France to submit to their judgment upon something that so vitally affects her existence as her Treaty rights in respect to, reparations.
I have dealt with these two problems because I had thought it very important to get them quite clear at the outset and also because it seemed to me to be the main subject of the indictment against the proposals which I am submitting on behalf of the Government. I come to the main theme of the Conference—the establishment of peace, confidence, and credit, currency, exchange, transport, the machinery of international trade. Many conferences have been held to discuss these questions—

Sir F. BANBURY: And have done no good.

The PRIME MINISTER: —under the auspices of the League of Nations—Brussels, Barcelona, Porto Rosa, Geneva, all under the auspices of the League of Nations. They accomplished a good deal, each of them. They advanced matters by each conference, but they did not accomplish all they sought to achieve. I am not criticising them for that; I am not criticising these conferences because they did not achieve all that their promoters had hoped. Some progress was registered by-each, and it is a mistake to imagine that, because a conference does not achieve everything which it has been summoned
to consider, therefore that conference has failed. If we proceed on that assumption Europe will never be restored. We must not be too easily cast down. We must not be too easily disappointed. There must be patience, persistence, continuity, and, if any progress is made towards a solution by any conference, that conference has justified its existence.
I do not understand this condemnation of conferences coming from the Labour party. They have been brought up on conferences.

Mr. LUNN: Real ones.

The PRIME MINISTER: Very real ones. In fact, they are the method of letting off the over-pressure of steam. Their view always has been that in the multitude of conferences there is safety, if not wisdom, and they naturally think that a good eruption now and again is better than a bad earthquake. Therefore, they have now and again largely concentrated on one movable crater. I cannot understand therefore their protest against conferences, and I would earnestly appeal to all those who are rather disposed to criticise conferences to hesitate before they tie their hands in advance. This Government will not last for ever. I have been assured that we are a dying Coalition. Therefore, perhaps I may have the privilege of a dying Minister and give my last words of advice. I do not know who will succeed us. I cannot even predict their character. I should say that their complexion will be piebald. Judging by the criticism of this Conference which appears on the paper, I should say that the new Government would have its principles enunciated and expounded by the "Morning Post," the "Daily Herald," the "Westminster Gazette," the "Daily Mail," and "Comic Cuts." I do not mention the "Times," because that is only a tasteless rehash of the "Daily Mail." But I should like to utter one word of kindly warning to this grotesque conglomeration not to tie their hands in advance about conferences. They will find it impossible in the state of Europe to get on without them. The world is so battered, so bruised, so crushed, there are so many injuries to its vital organs, that the cure will be a slow one, and it will need many consultations of its leading physicians, and therefore I entreat those who look forward to partaking of the
responsibility—and there are a good many of them—not to condemn themselves in advance to impotence, when they come to deal with the state of Europe and the world, by condemning the only rational process, short of force, of bringing the world gradually back to something like normal conditions, and from normal conditions to something which is better.
At Genoa there will be gathered together representatives of nearly 30 nations. They say, "What is the meaning of so momentous a gathering?" Because Europe, as a result of the War, from the Atlantic to the Urals, is a devastated area. Some countries suffered more, some countries have suffered less, but there is no country, at the present moment, which is not suffering from the consequence of that great War. What its the first problem—I will not say the problem of first importance—but one of the first problems and one of the most essential problems with which we have to deal? It is to restore the machinery of international trade. What is happening? All those who have been engaged in international trade know what a complicated machine, how delicate, how fragile it was, and how it took centuries of constant effort to build it up and to improve it. It was working well before the War, but it is exactly as if a bomb had been thrown into that machine and shattered it. There are improvisations.
They had to fall back, in some countries, upon primitive methods—the methods of barter. Commerce between certain countries is where it was thousands of years ago, because you have not got the machinery. The complicated, fine, delicate machinery which we had before the War is no longer working between the nations. What is the effect? Anyone who will take the trouble to look at the figures of international trade can see that for themselves. Last year the quantity of our export trade was only about 50 per cent. of what it was before the War. The export trade of Germany was, I think, about 25 per cent. The percentage of French trade was higher—I think it was 60 or 70 per cent.—but that is due to the fact that AlsaceLorraine and the Saar Valley have been added practically, for economic purposes, to France, and the exports from these regions have been added to French ex-
ports. But apart from that, the export trade of France is down by something like one-half. That necessarily affects the home market. We are a country depending more, probably, on international trade than any other country in the world. Thirty per cent. of the output of this country is exported—at least, was exported, before the War. Last year 24 per cent. of the output was exported. In addition to that, we had invisible exports reduced very considerably last year. That depresses the home market, because the population have not the same means of purchasing goods if they are deprived of that great trade on which they are depending by buying, selling and carrying abroad. Therefore, this is a problem of the most vital importance to the population of this country.
There is another aspect of it which I should like to bring to the notice of the House, because it has a very great bearing upon what we are proposing at Genoa. We are often asked a question: "If you lost your trade in Europe, could you not make it up by trading with the Dominions, trading with the Colonies and with other parts of the world?" The world is one trade unit. Our customers depend on their sales in European countries to pay for goods that we sell them. Take India. The purchases of India in this country have gone down very considerably. I attach great importance to this consideration from the point of view of Genoa. India is not buying from this country what she bought before the War. No doubt, the organised opposition to British trade there has something to do with it, but that is not the main reason. The main reason is that India has always paid us for the goods we sell her by the proceeds of her sales to other European countries. She pays us what she gets from selling to Germany, to France, to Austria and to Russia. She sold, in 1913, 60,000,000 lbs. of tea to Russia alone, and there are other commodities as well. Therefore, the trade of Europe is of the greatest importance to us, not merely directly, but indirectly, and unless you restore the trade of Europe as a whole, our purchasers will not be in a position to pay for the commodities which they get from us. What applies to India applies to Australia, to the Argentine, and to other parts of the world.
Therefore, the fact that international trade has broken down is one which is affecting this country very specially, and it is not merely because Europe is impoverished; it is because the machinery of exchange has also been shattered. The cables have been cut. Trade is dependent on currency, the exchange, and credit, and they are all broken down. I wonder whether some of my hon. friends who are not actually engaged in business with Europe have realised the enormous difficulty of doing business with a country whose exchange fluctuates not merely from month to month, or week to week, but from day to day, and from hour to hour. I am told that in Vienna a housewife has always to consider in the morning whether she will pay her bill before noon or in the afternoon. It is a kind of gamble which every housewife has. And that applies to other capitals now. Between the date that an order is given and delivery is effected the exchange may change by 20, 100 or 200 per cent. It is almost impossible for anyone to do business under those conditions. [An HON. MEMBER: "How does that affect the housewife of Vienna?"] I am only giving that as an illustration. I do not know what my hon. Friend has to say. It is just a little illustration in passing, and I do not think the observation is in the least justified. I was pointing out that when you are ordering goods, by the time you come to pay for them your exchange may be altered by 200 per cent. What is the reason? Currency has gone adrift. It has broken from its moorings and is drifting helplessly, and one of the first things to be attended to at the Genoa Conference is the question of restoring the exchanges. You must have a sound basis to proceed upon. In this country wonders have been achieved in this respect, and I think great credit is due to my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal and the present Chancellor of the Exchequer for pursuing, under great difficulties, a very sound financial policy, though not a very popular one.
But before trade can be fully restored you must be able to establish everywhere the convertibility of currency into gold or its equivalent—gold directly or indirectly by convertibility into liquid assets, and lodged in the banks of a country maintaining a free gold market. That may involve, and will involve, a devaluation of currency, but the world cannot afford to wait until currency is restored to par.
What matters is to establish the rate at a figure which can be maintained and which will, therefore, continue a reliable basis for international commerce. That is one of the problems to be considered at Genoa, and it is one of the most important problems. In order to achieve that, one of the first considerations is to induce the nations to balance their budgets. Until they do that, new issues of currency will debase the currency, and the exchange will become wilder and wilder. That is a matter where pressure can be exercised at a great international conference of the leading Ministers of the various nations. But, above all, it is essential that there should be a real peace between the nations. Until that is established the trader, the financier and the merchant are unnerved by the present conditions of things—gathering armies on the frontiers, red armies, and white armies, and armies of many other colours.
This leads me to perhaps the most controversial part of the issue which will come before the Genoa Conference, and that is the question of peace in Russia and peace with Russia. Here I am approaching a subject where perhaps legitimate prejudices cloud reason. The doctrine, the demeanour, and the actions of the Bolshevists have undoubtedly been of a character which has excited wrath and just anger, and made it exceedingly difficult for us to exercise judgment when we come to deal with the problem of our relations with that country. Pitt was confronted with exactly the same problem over a hundred years ago with regard to France. A revolution provoked by intolerable wrong and leading to the wildest excesses, created bitter and fierce resentment in this country, and he had to consider the problem of whether it was possible to make peace with men who had been responsible for such things. I cannot tell it better than by giving to the House of Commons the views which he then expressed. He first of all endeavoured to make peace with the French revolutionaries in 1796 and failed. He sent plenipotentiaries over for the purpose. In 1797 he made the same attempt and again failed, and the failure was attributed by Mr. Pitt to the fact that the French delegates produced an impossible claim to Belgium, at the instigation of Napoleon. This is the doctrine
which he laid down, and I very respectfully invite the attention of the House to the words which he used:
I have no hesitation in avowing, for it would be idleness and hypocrisy to conceal it, that for the sake of mankind in general and to gratify those sentiments which can never be eradicated from the human heart, I should see with pleasure and satisfaction the termination of a Government whose conduct and whose origin is such as we have seen that of the Government of France. But that is not the object, that ought not to be the principle of the war, whatever wish I may entertain in my own heart; and whatever opinion I may think is fair or manly to avow, I have no difficulty in stating that violent and odious as is the character of that Government I verily believe, in the present state of Europe, that if we are not wanting to ourselves, if, by the blessing of Providence, our perseverance and our resources should enable us to make peace with France upon terms on which we taint not our character, in which we do not abandon the sources of our wealth, the means of our strength, the defence of what we already possess; if we maintain our equal pretensions, and assert that rank which we are entitled to hold among the nations—the moment peace can be obtained on such terms, be the form of government in Prance what it may, peace is desirable, peace is then anxiously to be sought.
The House will bear one other quotation from Mr. Pitt, because it is very much to the point. In the same year he said".
I wish for the benefit of Europe—I wish for the benefit of the world at large and for the honour of mankind, as well as for the happiness of the people of France, although now your enemies, but who are objects of compassion—I wish, I say, that the present spirit of those rulers and the principles they cherish may be extinguished, and that other principles may prevail there. But whether that is to be so or not is more immediately their concern than ours. It is not to any alteration in that country, but to the means of security in this that I look with anxiety and care. I wish for peace, whether their principles be good or bad; but I do not wish to trust to their forbearance. Our defence should be in our own hands.
Those are the principles upon which we can proceed in approaching this difficult and dangerous project of endeavouring to make peace with a Government whose principles are just as odious and whose actions are just as loathsome as were those of the terrorists in 1792, 1793, 1794, and afterwards, in France. Mr. Pitt failed, entirely through the fault of the French revolutionaries. He had an embarrassment from which I am not suffering. He had a good many Die-hards in his Cabinet. In fact, I believe the most brilliant Member of his Cabinet took very extreme views on that
subject. But in spite of that difficulty with which he had to deal, and from which I am absolutely free, Mr. Pitt put forward those proposals, and it was only the folly of the French revolutionaries themselves that was responsible for the failure. Mr. Pitt realised that unless peace were made with the French revolutionaries there would be no peace for many a long devastating year, and there was not for 18 years after that period. [HON. MEMBERS: "We are at peace!"] We are not at peace; I am not sure that present conditions are very much better than war, except for the actual fact that war is no longer in progress. But we have the effects of war in many ways, and one is the closing down of Russia. There is no intercourse with that country, and, let me point out, that there will not be until peace is established. I am going to speak quite frankly.
I do not believe you are going to restore trade, business, and employment until you appease the whole of Europe. Until you establish peace over the whole of Europe there will be a standing element of disturbance, and trade will not go on. The nerves of commerce will be shaken while there are constant rumours of great armies being built up, of hordes of savage revolutionaries to be let loose upon Europe to reduce the countries of Europe to the same condition of desolation—[Laughter]—I hope hon. Members will consider this matter seriously. I am sorry to say these rumours are not without some foundation. There are, as I say, rumours of such an intention by the revolutionaries to reduce the countries of Europe to the terrible condition of famine, pestilence, and desolation in which Russia is. Naturally there is great apprehension. One cannot tell what is happening there. It is an inpenetrable jungle. One of the evils of a revolution is this, that all opinions about the revolutionary country partake of the violence of the revolution itself, whether they are for the revolution or against it. There are no moderate opinions about a revolution—never. Whether these rumours be true or whether they be invented, whether they be accurate or whether they be exaggerated, one cannot tell. This, however, we do know, that in trade and business rumours are facts. Whether the rumours are actually facts
themselves or not, does not, I am sorry to say, make all the difference it should. The mere existence of a rumour which is credited makes trade impossible.
What difference would this make? First of all, once the trader is admitted there, we should get to know the facts. In the second place, if trade wore introduced there, it would be to the interests of the country itself to retain it, and it will not retain it while these rumours are afloat. There is another point. The effect of those great revolutionary armies is to provide an excuse, if not a real justification, for huge armies in other countries. As everyone knows, France refused to discuss the question of land armaments in the Washington Conference, and everyone agrees that with this enormous Red Army in Russia as a menace, no country in Europe could reduce its land army. The countries cannot afford to do so. These armaments are absorbing the strength of the nations, but they will never be reduced until there is peace in Europe. Another reason is that Europe needs what Russia can supply. Before the War a quarter of the exportable wheat supply of the world came from Russia—millions of tons of barley and rye; great quantities of other necessary food supplies; millions of tons of manganese; two-thirds of the flax required for Europe; half the world's output of hemp; half the timber imported into the United Kingdom—all these came from Russia. Russia, in fact, was the greatest undeveloped country in the world. It has labour, it needs capital, and it will not get capital without security, confidence and peace, internal as well as external. Take another case. Germany cannot pay the full demand of reparation until Russia is restored.
5.0 P M.
Now what are the conditions of peace laid down at Cannes? I am not going over them—the House of Commons has got the document in its possession—but in substance they mean that Russia must recognise all the conditions imposed and accepted by civilised communities as the test of fitness for entering into the comity of nations. She must recognise her national obligations. A county that repudiates her obligations because she changes her Government is a country you cannot deal with—certainly not in these days, when Governments change so often. They could not pay immediately. Nobody
expects that. Who can? M. Poincaré said the other day that he acknowledged France's debt to America, but if he were called upon to pay it immediately he could not do so. That is equally true of Russia, but she must shoulder the responsibility, as France does and as Britain does, and acknowledge it. The moment she does that it has its value. In fact, the mere prospect of payment has increased the value already. In France there are millions of frugal people who have put the whole of their savings into Russian securities at one time and another, and it is impossible for France and for Britain to deal on equal terms with a country whose rulers decline to acknowledge her obligations.
Where the property of our nationals has been confiscated, it must, if not destroyed, be restored, and I am told there is a good deal of it still there. I was told by a gentleman the other day who has some property there that the factories were still there; that there had not been much destruction. The property must be restored or compensation paid. Impartial tribunals must be established, with free access to them by the nationals of all countries, and those tribunals must not be the creatures of the Executive. There must be a complete cessation of attacks upon the institutions of other countries. There must be an undertaking that there will be no aggressive action against the frontiers of their neighbours. In fact, the Pact which is embodied in the League of Nations will have to be extended in principle to Russia, so that Russia should undertake not to attack her neighbours, and her neighbours, on the other hand, must undertake a corresponding obligation not to attack her frontiers. The only difference would be this—and I think it is important that I should say so—that I do not think we could under take the responsibility as a country which we have incurred under Article 10 of the League, of Nations to defend any frontiers which are attacked in that quarter of the globe.
Is Russia prepared to accept these conditions? There are indications of a complete change of attitude. The famine has been a great eye-opener to Russia as to her dependability upon her neighbours and as to the futility of the scheme of things which the Soviet Government has propounded as a method of solving the
problems of life. The new Decrees recognise private property, set up courts, and acknowledge responsibilities, and I would call the attention of the House to the very remarkable speech in which this new policy was propounded. It was propounded on 1st November, 1921—November last—in a speech by Lenin. It was an admission of the complete failure of the Communist system, and in that respect it is a singularly courageous speech. He admits they have been wrong, he admits they have been beaten. He points out that the result of Communism has been completely to destroy the very proletariat upon whom they were depending. These are some of his words, and I think I quote them fairly. Anyone who cares to take the whole of the speech and quote other passages can do so. He said:
There can be no doubt among Communists that we have suffered an economic defeat on the economic front, an extremely heavy defeat, and we put forward our new economic policy with a thorough knowledge of that fact.
He goes on afterwards to say:
The new economic policy means the transition to the re-establishment of capitalism to a certain extent. To what extent we do not know. … If capitalism is going to win and grow, so will industrial production.
Was there ever such a condemnation of the doctrines of Socialism—the doctrines of Karl Marx?
If capitalism is going to win and grow, so will industrial production, and with it the proletariat. … Inasmuch as the large capitalistic industry has been ruined, and works and factories have stopped, so has the proletariat disappeared.
With the disappearance of capitalists, the disappearance of workmen. That is the doctrine of Mr. Lenin, the new doctrine which he puts before the world. It is a very remarkable admission to make. It is worth anyone's while to read this very remarkable condemnation and exposure of the doctrines of Karl Marx by its greatest—not merely its greatest living exponent, but its greatest exponent, the only man who has ever tried honestly to put these doctrines into operation, the one man. He had a whole country at his disposal, he had a country of infinite resources, he had a population of from 120 to 150 millions, he had great armies, which had defeated all enemies and all counter-revolutionaries. He had complete control. There never has been
a man who was so complete a dictator over the fortunes and fate of 100 or 150 millions of people. He tries the experiment; he says it is a failure; and the only result has been to destroy the very people who were supposed to be the permanent beneficiaries—the workmen of the country. It is worth circulating, and I hope it will be.

Mr. MILLS: We were told that last October.

The PRIME MINISTER: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. That is the first time I have ever read that speech. I had the privilege of seeing it for the first time only on Saturday—the full verbatim report. There have been extracts from it before. If this represents the real determination of Russia in its dealings with the world, in its dealings with the West—respect for private property, respect for the rights of individuals, fair play to those who make investments there, acknowledgment of honourable debts incurred by people who put the savings, very often of their lifetime, into Russian investments—then there is a real basis upon which we can treat. Russia needs equipment, transport, agricultural implements, the repair of old machinery and the provision of new machinery, for its mines, for its works. It needs clothing. If such a peace as I have indicated upon these conditions can be achieved—and there is substantial agreement amongst the experts of all nations as to the working out of these conditions—of course it would have to be submitted to the House of Commons for its approval and ratification.
I now come to the question in the minds of a good many of my friends—what recognition of Russia would this involve? It would involve no further recognition until the House of Commons approved—none. After approval, the stages of recognition would be those which ensue after most of the peace treaties—not all, but I will explain. It would involve access by other countries and their nationals to the courts of Russia; it would involve access by Russia and her nationals to our courts. Without this full legal status, business would be impossible, quite impossible. It would involve the establishment of the usual agencies by which the trader in foreign lands is protected. The nomination of these agents must be entirely subject to
the approval of the Governments in both cases. What would be involved in the way of diplomatic representation? A feeling has been very generally expressed that before full and ceremonial diplomatic representation is accorded, a probationary period should be interposed. Some diplomatic representation on both sides is essential, otherwise business cannot be effectively transacted or business men protected. It is, however, felt that the character and extent of the diplomatic representation accorded depends not merely on the conditions which Russia is prepared to accept, but upon the actual proof which she gives of her bona fides. Let me say quite frankly that the way in which some of the more important of the Clauses of the Trade Agreement have been violated has not been encouraging. Propaganda, interference in our country, and in other countries in which we are interested, has not ceased as completely as we had a right to expect when that document was signed. It is not for us to dictate to the Genoa Conference, but it is necessary that we should indicate beforehand what our views are upon this most important subject, and the policy with which the British delegates will enter that Conference. Until the House of Commons ratifies, there can be no change in the representation or in the extent of the diplomatic recognition of Russia.
If the agreement is ratified, then the course pursued could be that pursued in the case of Germany after the Treaty of Peace. We could proceed by steps. The Powers wished in the case of Germany, before exchanging ambassadors, that a reasonable interval should intervene to test her bona fides. There would be no full ceremonial diplomatic representation in the case of Russia, as there was not in the case of Germany, until the Powers are satisfied that Russia is really endeavouring to carry out the terms of her undertaking. That interval is one which is usually established in case of peace between nations. Russia would be represented here by a chargé d'affaires, and we should be represented in Russia by a corresponding official, until such time as we felt that it was desirable to establish full ceremonial diplomatic relations. In the case of Germany, that was accorded 12 months after the signature of peace, and six months after ratification by all the Powers. That would present a period
of probation, which it would be wise to establish in the matter of ceremonial diplomatic representation, in order to receive the necessary guarantees, not merely on paper, but in practice; that the Russian Government intend not only themselves to honour the obligations of the Treaty, but that they have established sufficient control over the extremists and powerful organisations in their midst which are now engaged in challenging the new policy of the Soviet Government. Those will be the conditions which we propose that the British delegates shall submit to the Genoa Conference.

Colonel Sir C. YATE: Does that mean one year?

The PRIME MINISTER: It means until the Powers are satisfied that Russia is carrying out, in a bonâ fide spirit, the obligations which she has incurred. It might mean more, or it might mean less. It will be left to the Powers to decide whether Russia is carrying out her obligations. That was the case with Germany before full ceremonial diplomatic representation was accorded. I do not suppose that for some time the full benefit of such an arrangement would be reaped, but it would open out, undoubtedly, a new outlook for trade, and the effect from the psychological point of view-would be great. What is the alternative? The alternative is that you should do nothing until one day it is reported that the Soviet Government has disappeared, and that a Government of a totally different character has been set Up in Russia. When is that going to happen? I have heard predictions every year that that Government is coming to an end—1919, 1920, 1921, and this is 1922. Is anyone here prepared to stake his political reputation that 1922 will see the last of it, or that 1923 will? Are my hon. Friends quite sure that if this Government disappears you will not have exactly the same experience as you had in France, and even a worse Government—perhaps a militarist Government, which will embroil Europe? It is our duty to see it is the establishment of a complete peace throughout the whole of Europe, with a view to dealing with the serious problems of trade and unemployment which are confronting us at home at this moment. Do my hon. Friends imagine that the
workmen of this country are prepared to wait, with all this unemployment, while half Europe is practically closed down, if there is a real prospect of making peace? I am convinced they are not.
There have been a few elections recently. I am in the habit of facing unpleasant facts, and this is one. There are men in France and in this country who are certainly not supporters of the Labour party who rejoice at these elections, and seem to see the end of something they dislike. Are they sure they are not going to see the beginning of something they will dislike more?

Mr. N. MACLEAN: Nothing could be worse.

The PRIME MINISTER: I have seen articles in French papers saying, "The Government of England is losing its support, and we shall see something different. "Yes; we suffered a reverse in three constituencies. There were three men there before the elections who would have voted for the enforcement of the Treaty of Versailles in all its terms. There are three men there now who would vote against it. There were three men there who would have voted for a very cautious approach to the Russian Government. There are three men in those seats now who would vote for unqualified, immediate recognition. Let us face these facts. I have a great respect for my hon. Friends, although I do not agree with them, but the movement of opinion is not in their direction. We are proposing, I consider, a moderate course—a cautious course. It may be over-cautious. We are doing our best to work in partnership with France, with whom we worked for four or five of the most terrible years through which any nation could pass, and we have, so far, done our best to keep step with France. In approaching Russia we have taken into account all reasonable prejudices against those people who have outraged every sentiment that is dear to the vast majority of the people of this country. Believe me, unless peace is made—if we fail because there are men who will not go as far, either here or elsewhere—the movement will not be in their direction; it will be away from them. Let them be wise in time. We propound these measures, in all consciousness feeling that the people of England demand them; Europe needs them; the world is crying out for them.

Mr. CLYNES: I beg to move, to leave out from the word 'That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words
whilst approving of an international economic and financial conference, this House regrets that the scope of discussion at Genoa has been so circumscribed that the conference must fall short of a settlement of the political and economic evils which afflict Europe, and is of opinion that His Majesty's Government, which has clearly not the confidence of the country and which is responsible for the policy the unfortunate effects of which are to be considered at Genoa, is not competent to represent this country.
The Prime Minister, in the earlier part of his remarks, fell into an error by assuming that there was precedent for the procedure followed by the Government this afternoon. On the occasion when this House decided to pass, as it did unanimously, a Resolution relating to the Conference at Washington, that Resolution was moved from this side of the House, and was put upon the Order Paper in my own name and in the names of several members of the Labour party. The present Motion, so far as I know Parliamentary history, and viewed in the general light of the present-day political situation and in the light of the immediate purpose of the Motion, is not in accordance with practice, if it be in accordance with any precedent. I have a good deal of sympathy with the Prime Minister, in view of his ordeal this afternoon. For an hour and a half—I do not complain of the time—he has addressed the House, not in an effort to persuade Members of the Opposition as to the advisability of international conference in relation to the distracted and almost ruined state of Europe; the greater part, certainly some three-quarters, of the time of the Prime Minister has been occupied in addressing the serried ranks behind him, and unfortunately for his purpose he felt, I am certain, that the address evoked more yawns than cheers.
The Prime Minister made some little play of the fact that Labour is accustomed to conferences. That is really not a point against labour. Had there been more conferences probably there would have been fewer conflicts. I remember the Prime Minister, when he came back to this House after having met for the first time the representatives of Germany following the War, saying that if such conferences as that which he had attended
had been held, even in the years before 1914, the world might have been saved the terrible losses which the War had brought. I agree with the conclusion of the Prime Minister that in economic affairs, in general industrial and even fiscal interests, the world is a unit, and the countries which form it cannot separate themselves and detach themselves from what is the common interest without either suffering singly or sharing in the common loss which is certain to follow. Yet it has been the policy of this Government, even since the end of the War, to erect economic barriers and to do little to produce any condition of industrial co-operation among the nations that were created as a result of the War itself. With respect to the establishment of these several new States and nations, first formed in some instances and restored in others, I wonder whether the men who framed the Versailles Treaty sought to procure in the case of these provision for industrial co-operation or such relations between us industrially as would prevent that economic disaster which has resulted. If that was not thought of at the time those who framed the Versailles Treaty were surely not thinking of England, for, as the Prime Minister said, we must export more than 30 per cent. of our trade, and we, therefore, have to risk greater loss and suffering than any of the other countries from any degree of economic or industrial dislocation in Central Europe.
As the Prime Minister has indicated, one of the leading tasks of this Conference at Genoa is to stabilise the exchanges. I remember pressing the Prime Minister here some two years ago by question on the subject. I asked for some information of what had been effected., and how far this question had been taken in hand by those attending these several Conferences of which we have had so many—I refer to the Conferences or meetings of the Supreme Council. The only information we could get two years ago under this head was that consultations with great financiers and experts and men of experience in these matters had not been very helpful. How far, then, has the Government been able to discover whether it is possible, as a matter of practice, to stabilise the exchanges, except by a process of freely increasing the weight and value of the commodities
exchanged between country and country? I think it will be found again by experience that the only process by which you can restore well-balanced exchanges is by restoring a better balance of commodities exchanged between country and country. Other artificial devices, or other processes, may be brought within the sphere of national or international finance. If these processes are within the capacity of the Government, they might well have been practised years ago. In short, these Conferences, some 9 or 10 of which have already been held, are essential not so much because of the War; they are essential because of the terms of the peace. Unless the Genoa Conference proceeds to revise and to deal with many outstanding features of the Peace Treaty, it will as completely fail in its purpose as so many Conferences have failed.
We on this side of the House are, I think, entitled to complain of the failure to answer the direct and simple questions which have been put—mostly, I think, in the absence of the Prime Minister—in the past week or two with respect to matters that have a direct bearing upon this afternoon's Debate. These questions are, in the judgment of many Members, essential and necessary to a complete examination of the great purpose hinging upon the Genoa Conference. That Conference must not be looked at in the light of a party position, not so much even as a Coalition party position. If it is to serve its purpose, the representatives who attend it must be there in the character of national supporters of the policy and purpose of the whole nation. We have put questions in a simple and direct manner, and we have, in effect, been told to wait and see, and that the Government had nothing to add to whatever might be disclosed in the White Paper. It is not too late to say that in some degree our secret diplomacy is still being continued. I ask: Was it always the practice to keep the Parliamentary Opposition in the dark on the foremost aspects of our foreign policy? If so, I say it is not a good plan to follow. The Government cannot get the real confidence of the country unless in these larger aspects of foreign relations the Opposition i6 taken more into the confidence of the Government, and the
Minister, and particularly the Prime Minister, is able to speak for the House of Commons as a whole.

The PRIME MINISTER: On the general proposition stated by the right hon. Gentleman I am in agreement. I am quite willing to give him any information in my power in reference to the Genoa Conference. There is nothing to conceal. I think the report of the experts is the only document I am not entitled to publish. It has not been submitted to the Allied Ministers, and, therefore, we are not in a position to publish it. Apart from that, I do not know that anything has been kept back.

Mr. CLYNES: More than one question was put from this side of the House during the absence of the Prime Minister, and it might be because of his absence the information to which we were entitled was not given. I have not by me either the terms of questions or replies, but this is a matter on which I am glad to have the reassuring comment of the Prime Minister. I am not at all personally complaining of his attitude in relation to this matter. In the definite Motion which the House is asked to consider, is it not clear to us that it has been put upon the Order Paper less because of the work to be done at Genoa than because of the party and personal divisions which have aroused in the country the strong resentment shown in recent bye-elections? In face, therefore, of the economic conditions which are imposing real privations upon millions of the people of this country, I think it is proved that the Government clearly is crumbling. The Prime Minister's speed this afternoon reveals fully his own consciousness of that crumbling state, and there has been a change of position. The Conference which was a promising high road to trade revival has been changed to the gateway for a General Election campaign.
Economic reconstruction is not the immediate cause of the Motion on the Order Paper. I have no doubt the Prime Minister will secures a sufficient following in the Lobby to enable him to conclude that he has got the confidence of the House. I have no doubt at all about that. But the spirit of the genuine following of that support for the purpose that the Prime Minister should have will be lacking The majority
must not be taken as any measure of confidence in the Government, confidence, I mean, on the part of all Members or confidence on the part of all sections of the House of Commons. Whether this is helpful or no, I think the moment has come to be frank with those who, by the line of foreign policy they have so far pursued, have brought our country to the brink of ruin, and who now, judged by the speech of the Prime Minister, expect it to give them their confidence and a mandate for half-hearted procedure, which, when it is all completed at Genoa, will, I fear, leave the world pretty much as it was. I hope before I have finished to sustain one or two of these conclusions.
The spirit of genuine international conference is inconsistent with all that we have heard recently about the proposed French Pact. It is inconsistent with the operation of allied power through the Supreme Council. The spirit of genuine international conference is inconsistent with the treatment by the Government of the League of Nations. Until we reconcile these lines of policy, the Prime Minister of Great Britain cannot expect, on such a high occasion as this, to get a real and unanimous body of support from the British House of Commons. Labour, of course, stands for the principle of conferences of this kind. It stands for real conferences, not for conferences hingeing upon a succession of party manœuvres. We do not want a conference which beforehand has been so limited, so emasculated by ruinous decisions as to render it almost futile for the purpose for which it is being held. International conferences as a method for concluding conflicts and for restoring trade is an old method of organised labour. We called for this method immediately after the War was over, and we pointed out the defects in regard to the limitations of the Genoa Conference. In the first place, it is being held three years too late, and it is surrounded by harmful entanglements and commitments due to other phases of our foreign policy. It is faced with the lost confidence of the Government both on the part of the country and the House of Commons. I assert that our advice should have been followed three years ago, when we made appeals from hundreds of platforms for which we were denounced in this House as enemies of
our country and friends of every country but our own, and for which we were called pro-Germans and Bolshevists—these were epithets hurled at us because at the right time we suggested the right thing. How the Prime Minister can expect that any great yield can come from this Conference, with an agenda so pared down, I fail to understand, for at the bottom of all these difficulties the Prime Minister knows very well there is the Peace Treaty of Versailles, and until the outstanding features of that Treaty, more particularly in reference to reparations, are substantially revised, no one can expect to put Europe economically upon its feet again.
I recall another phrase. I have not got the exact words, but I remember the Prime Minister on a recent occasion in this House declaring, much to the dismay of many of his followers, that a contented and a prosperous Germany was essential to the peace of the world—I think we must add to that the prosperity of the world as well. If, then, the Conference at Genoa is not to deal with questions of reparations or with existing Treaties or with questions of land armaments; if it cannot deal with such problems, how can the Prime Minister expect that any substantial improvement will come from such a Conference? The Prime Minister spoke this afternoon of a real peace. I would like to draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the language of the Speech from the Throne. This is what it says:
For these reasons I welcome the arrangements which are now being made for the meeting of an international conference at Genoa at which, I trust, it will be possible to establish peace on a fair basis in Europe, and to reach a settlement of the many important questions arising out of the pressing need for financial and economic reconstruction.
I conclude that the language of the Speech from the Throne is very carefully considered and that in every word there is a meaning. What was meant when at the beginning of this Session the Government spoke of a fair peace? If we are to be told that at Genoa consideration must be given to the establishment in Europe of a fair peace, does not that clearly mean that for the first time in the Speech from the Throne we have an implied admission that a fair peace has not yet been established? You must not only have a real peace, but one founded on equity, and it must be fair as between country and
country. You can have no fair peace without a Treaty revision, and you can have no economic revival or trade restoration until you have a peace grounded in equity, and until a peace of mind is established in the mind and consciences of the population of the various European countries.
Reparation are in a large degree being paid for now, not by Germany, but by the British working classes. I wish we could call upon and compel Germany to pay every farthing which the cost of the War involved. That would be a nice, easy, cosy sort of arrangement for us. I am not thinking in any terms of tenderness for the Germans, but I am thinking of what German reparations mean for the working classes of this country. I ask the Prime Minister's attention to the fact that during his absence, and within the last few days, the Minister of Labour has given us an estimate of how long we may expect this kind of thing to continue. Further millions are to be provided, and further borrowing powers are to be secured, in order to keep alive those of our workmen who have been driven to a state of almost perpetual idleness because of reparations of this kind. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] I shall be happy to find that that conclusion is not well grounded, but I am not going to trust to my own judgment. If the facts of these economic truths have not yet found their way into the Cabinet room, I have no doubt that ultimately they will get there, just as many other facts in relation to Russia have got there. In regard to re parations, take the case which has been put by the chairman of Barclay's Bank He says:
The problem of reparation payments turns not only upon the ability of Germany to pay, but also upon the world's ability to receive payment according to the plan as it now stands.
Mr. Edgar Crammond, the head of the National Union of Manufacturers, has expressed the same conclusion, and Mr. McKenna, formerly a distinguished Member of this House, says:
Before Germany can develop her foreign trade so as to have an exportable surplus wherewith to pay the reparations demanded, the foreign trade of this country (her chief competitor) must dwindle into significance.
I think the Prime Minister might profit a little by some consultation with high authorities in finance and industry in relation to reparations. More than one
supporter of the Government has admitted the harmful effects on business and industry of the present degree and form of the reparations imposed upon Germany. The degree and form of those reparation payments are directly responsible for our unemployment. The forced activity of German workpeople has had the most mischievous result on our opportunity for work. If the pace at which Germany is compelled to produce is maintained the result will be that during the development of the reparation period a serious displacement of British labour will take place. If these things are not known to my right hon. Friend opposite I hope that some attention will be paid to them in the future. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am glad to find some approval from hon. Gentlemen sitting behind the Prime Minister. All I am saying is that if Germany is compelled to produce at her present pace of production for the purpose of meeting the reparations, it will mean that during the period of the reparation payments there will be a most serious displacement of British labour, and ultimately German production will have secured such an establishment in industry as to place Germany in a triumphant position in relation to the labour and industrial conditions and almost give her a monopoly in the world's markets.
The high speed of work in Germany is in a high degree making for the mastership on the part of Germany in the markets of the world. We are paying by our underwork for the overwork which reparations mean to Germany. Take the figures which have been given. I have heard the figure put at £300,000,000 yearly. Of course Germany cannot pay anything only so far as she gets it in exchange for goods, and those goods must be produced. Germany has no unemployment problem comparable with our own. Her people are working hard, working long hours and double shifts at low wages. It is clear as day that this powerful industrial country, having a great place already in the world's markets, must directly mean diminishing our opportunities for production and driving us out of the markets which we formerly had.
6.0 P.M.
Let us consider the effect of the various reparation payments on our position in regard to employment and finance. Our
share of reparations when we get it is something like £60,000,000 a year. At present we are paying annually in benefits, grants, maintenance sums, doles as they are termed—in all forms we pay annually to our unemployed not less than double the sum of £60,000,000. Supposing gradually we are able to reduce our unemployed to one-half the present figure. It will cost us then to keep the other half the whole of the sum that we are likely under any circumstances to obtain from Germany under the present terms of reparations. I think there will be some inclination on the part of hon. Members to tell the country and the world, or to tell the electors of Britain, that here again is the Labour party not only not wishing that Germany should pay, but objecting to our methods of exacting payment from her. The country knows more of these facts than Members of the Government are aware of. Little as the average man may know of the general principles of economy in our country, the bitterness of his experience in the last 18 months—an experience which the Government tells him he must face for another 18 months—has driven him to investigate this question. Unemployment will continue, the indebtedness of capital will increase, plant and machinery will remain idle, and Germany will more and more secure for herself what may be ultimately a permanent and dominant place in the industry of the world. Take as a witness in support of my view a very interesting piece of testimony from Germany. At a meeting held in Germany in September last the German Minister of Reconstruction used these words:
We must go to the limit of our capacity in regard to Reparations, for a complete fulfilment of the terms of the ultimatum will hit the world economically more severely than it will hit us.
Everything then points to the fact that Germany is being made to pay in excess of her power, and that that excess payment is reflected in the driving out of British goods from markets which they formerly supplied, and consequently in the enforced idleness of one and three-quarter millions of our own workpeople. Russia occupied a considerable part of the Prime Minister's speech, and yet I cannot help concluding that the Prime Minister proposes to apply to Russia a most halfhearted and wholly ineffective way of
dealing with the Russian problem. We are not to have recognition of Russia. No! Only to some extent. There are to be limitations and restrictions. We are not to shake hands with Russia, we will go only the length of shaking three fingers with her. That is about the conclusion that must be drawn from the restricted relationship to be set up between Russia and ourselves. Russia is a great country treated by Europe as an outcast since the collapse of the Czarist Government during the period of the War. I have no sympathy at all, as I hope is well known, with the brute force methods of the Bolshevists, but those brute force methods are merely a continuation of the brute force methods of a tyrannical Czardom that existed long before the War, and we were not then so nice and particular in arranging our relationships. The dictatorship of a working class is a natural, if highly undesirable, imitation of the dictatorship which it displaced in Russia. Whatever the form of Russian Government may be, we cannot afford to wait until the Russian people may insist upon a change and develop institutions similar to our own. That is the conclusion of the Prime Minister himself, and what is the good of talking like this and doing so little? After all, what the Prime Minister said here to-day is only a repetition of what he said in this House exactly two years ago. Let me read his words:
First of all, there is the fundamental principle of all foreign policy in this country, a very sound principle, that you should never interfere in the internal affairs of another country, however badly governed, and whether Russia is Menshevist or Bolshevist, whether it is reactionary or revolutionary, whether it follows one set of men or another, that is a matter for the Russian people themselves. We cannot interfere, according to any canon of good government, to impose any form of Government on another people, however bad we may consider their present form of Government to be. The people of this country thoroughly disapproved of Czardom, its principles, its corruption, and its oppression, but it was not our business to put it down. This is a question for the Russian people themselves.
I ask, what is the good of repeating this statement at intervals of two years and in the meantime finding that the following of the Prime Minister is still unconverted? Indeed the only warmth evoked in his favour this afternoon, or in support of his side, was when he made a few almost feeble references to the failure of Communism. The paragraph
read by the Prime Minister this afternoon was no news to us. We read that confession of failure in our Labour journals five months ago, and if my right hon. Friend has not got the whole of the speech I shall be glad to hand him a Labour journal containing it. Why, of course, Communism was bound to fail. Communism never can succeed, except in a community of Communists and then only when a Communist mentality has been produced. Without it it is doomed to failure. I marvel that so fantastic an experiment was tried by men of high ability and repute as undoubtedly numbers of the Russian leaders are. You cannot secure success for it by simply commanding it to come into existence. It may come as the growth of generations of development in thought. It is neither a surprise nor a wonder to us that this effort at imposing Communism from the top on masses of people understanding nothing whatever about it has completely failed, as has been admitted.
After we have done our worst in the condemnation of Communism, let us turn for a moment to see what Capitalism in this country has done, because we must not use the House of Commons merely as a sounding board for capitalist praises. We must see what Capitalism has brought in its train in this country. Those of us who are seeking modifications of that system and to replace very many features of it with a more sane and equitable order of things must press on the Prime Minister facts of which he evidently is ignorant. You have a million and three-quarter people living on doles. You have seven million workers in a state either of under-employment or suffering recently such heavy wage reductions as have brought them down to lower than the subsistence level. I said before, and I repeat it now in the Prime Minister's presence, that his appeal for national economy will fail, because nine-tenths of the people in this country have nothing to save and therefore can spare nothing, and the other tenth are not inclined to pay any reasonable attention to his demand. While Capitalism produces and tolerates slums, while Capitalism produced what the Prime Minister himself graphically described before the War as a C3 nation, while it condemns so many of our people to such heavy privations as they now
have to endure, our praises of Capitalism must be somewhat restricted. I think the Prime Minister might reconsider the conditions of approaches to the Russian Government which evidently are part of the bargain he has had to make with his supporters. If I reject the view seriously that any Prime Minister can speak like this in the House of Commons about the rights of a Government which they care to tolerate, I doubt whether such a Prime Minister could voluntarily consent to the half-hearted and limited relationship which it is proposed to set up between the Russian nation and ourselves. Our policy towards Russia must be completely changed even if our Ministers have to go back on their furious condemnation of the present Russian rulers. If they do that, they can go forward with a new method which will bring Russia into the company of European nations.
We have an example here at home of what this double dealing leads to. At one time leaders of the Irish nation were no better in the view of Members of the Government than the present Bolshevist leaders. There is not a word in all the language of our Ministers as applied to Russia which has not even in recent years been applied in this House to the present leaders of Irish opinion, and I have no doubt that when the Prime Minister gets into the company of the Russian leaders, as he got into the company of Irish leaders, he will find them quite human, though perhaps not quite so adroit or skilled in the art of negotiation as he himself, but still competent to effectively represent their particular point of view. I think he will find for instance that the representatives of Russia, while listening to what he may have to say as to their debts and obligations to us, will have something to say as to our debt to them, for we shared in a policy which by enormous expenditure, by military advice, and by many acts which it would have been well for this nation to have avoided, helped further to cripple and to ruin a large part of the Russian nation. The destruction of her property and her desolation was caused by successive military invasions which we encouraged and supported, and there is a state of indebtedness and poverty in Russia for which the Russian representatives may call upon us to pay something. Therefore it will not be a one-sided subject when it is discussed at the Genoa Conference.
Before the War, Russia was a chief source of our supplies of cereals. Part of our prosperity is linked with the prosperity of Russian agriculture. Russian agriculture offers great opportunities for the manufacture in this country of agricultural machinery. Such trade with Russia, either in that or in other articles of export, is impossible without frank and full recognition of that country, and without even consultation with the Russian Government. How can we have confidence, how can we completely remove suspicion, by denying a condition of equality, as between nation and nation, in the discussion of these problems, or until we place Russia upon the footing of being equal with us, at least in matters of courtesy and debate? Until we do that, we cannot expect any return to the confidence upon which alone credit can be restored or trade done successfully as between two countries.
The Prime Minister this afternoon did not touch upon one subject which for just a moment I should like to bring to his mind. I have before asked in this House how far our Ministers and our Cabinet are wholly responsible for policy as it has been determined in relation to Russia, to reparations, and to many other features of these successive conferences dating back to the Versailles Treaty. We have been told that always there was the most complete agreement with France, that there was absolute harmony and the most cordial understanding, that the two countries were at one. Accepting those statements as true, as I do, they surely mean that the Prime Minister has accepted an enormous responsibility, and that no particular direction of French policy can be cited either as an excuse for or as a defence of the line of action pursued by him. As a country able to exert enormous influence in these Conferences, as a Government backed by an enormous majority, and having secured, as it did, national confidence for the definite purpose of making a real and a fair peace, the responsibility of the Ministers of to-day is heavy indeed.
I observe that a very large delegation is to accompany the Prime Minister to Genoa. I do not at all complain of the number. It may be, for reasons of efficiency and consultation and advice, necessary to spend even considerable sums of money, and, if the result is to bring
us nearer to anything like peace and trade prosperity, the money will be well spent indeed. But now, again, while the Prime Minister was absent, we endeavoured in this House to secure some place, for advisory and consultative and technical purposes, for the representatives of the great co-operative movement in this country. That movement represents an enormous consuming public of more than 12,000,000 persons. It is a social and economic movement to secure the highest welfare of the greatest body of consumers in this and all other countries. It is not confined, by constitution or practice, to any class or any interest. It is open to all who care to join it, and who care to share in an effort designed to procure a higher degree of national well-being. The Prime Minister and other Ministers, in the country and in this House, have publicly acknowledged the services of this great co-operative movement. I think, therefore, that such a body might have been given an opportunity, as representatives of great manufacturing and financial interests were given an opportunity, in connection with the recent meeting at Cannes. This great co-operative body does not pursue its interests as does any other private trading concern, but is practically an organisation seeking first and seeking always the public well-being. As a body, it appeals to the Prime Minister to use its great experience and its services, because it does an immense international trade and is enormously interested in the restoration of international peace, of world peace. For these reasons, such a body might have been invited to this Conference.
I move the Amendment which stands in my name as an act of opposition to the Prime Minister's Motion. The speech of the Prime Minister this afternoon clearly reveals that he has ceased to be a Prime Minister in fact, and has become a mere party prisoner. He is no longer the leader he was. He has stood up this afternoon to make a speech as a desperate and defeated agent of futile compromises within his own Cabinet, and Labour can neither give nor imply any Vote of Confidence in a Government which, both at me and in foreign affairs, has neglected to use for the national benefit the efformous majority that was given to it at the last Election. Not a single promise in relation to
domestic and industrial questions has been redeemed, and the labour and economic conditions of the country have for two years imperilled the safety of this nation. These conditions are due to acts of international policy which have destroyed our trade and dislocated pre-War conditions of credit and finance. We are brought nearer to ruin, and I fear, from the experience of the Prime Minister's speech this afternoon, that the Genoa Conference will not remove us any further from it. I beg to move;

Colonel GRETTON: We have listened to a violent attack upon the policy of the Government delivered from the Front Bench above the Gangway, and I am sure the House will not expect me to agree with a great deal that has been said by the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. The terms of the Amendment which he has just moved give reasons for disagreeing with the Government, but the only part of the Amendment with which I agree is the concluding part, which expresses want of confidence in the policy of the Government. My cause for disagreement is on quite other grounds. This Conference at Genoa is the outcome of the Conference which was held at Cannes, and which was so unfortunate in its results, for it led to the downfall of two Governments, while as regards any positive decision or conclusion it proved to be a failure. Matters or importance were referred to a future occasion, namely, the Conference which is to be held at Genoa. It is remarkable that the Prime Minister in his speech this afternoon repeatedly informed the House that the Conference at Genoa is a Conference to make peace. The world was informed three years ago that peace had been made at Paris. We thought there was peace, except in the Near East, where Turkey and Greece have recently been at war. There has, however, been no war in the case of Russia. There is no attack upon Russia. We ought to have had greater enlightenment on this matter. If anyone has been making war on Russia, and this economic and financial Conference at Genoa is going to make peace with Russia, we ought to be informed of the whole facts of the situation which have led to the conclusion of peace. Practically there is no one making war on Russia.
We have heard a great deal about a Vote of Confidence in this Government. It is difficult to know how much reliance can be placed on the statements in the Press which supports this Government, but we were told that the Government were going to propose a Vote of Confidence and really test the opinion of the House of Commons. To-day we have a Motion of quite a different character. We were even informed that there was a Ministerial crisis. The Prime Minister, in some sentences in his speech, appeared to deny that fact, but what we are asked to do is to agree with the Government in the resolutions of the Cannes Conference, and to accord to them our confidence in carrying out the policy based on those resolutions. To that, therefore, I propose to confine myself. The speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) was a direct attack upon our Ally, France. It was directly antagonistic to all French aspirations and all the principles upon which the French are going to the Conference at Genoa. The French Government desire and intend—they have said so in plain language—that the Conference shall be strictly confined to economic and financial subjects. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting desires to extend it broadly over the whole field, including Treaty revisions, and the re-opening of the whole question of reparations, which the French Government are entirely opposed to doing. Therefore, the policy of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting would lead straight to a complete overturn of the whole system of foreign policy in Europe.
I hold, and I believe the majority of my countrymen hold, that the key to a safe, sound and stable foreign policy is that we should have a firm working agreement with France, and that ought to be the key to our actions. One of the greatest errors which has occurred in the policy of His Majesty's Government is that they have sown the seeds of distrust with France between the cordial friendship of the two peoples and between the intimate understandings of the two Governments by their constant changes and constant opposition and want of cordial understanding with France. This is deplorable, and I hold, and I am sure the majority of the House will hold, that the sooner relations of complete confidence and trust between
ourselves and the French people are reestablished the better it will be for the peace of the whole world and the prosperity of ourselves and our Allies. According to the Prime Minister the only matter in his mind in going to Genoa is to establish trade relations with Russia. The Resolutions at Cannes covered a very much wider field. They would lead you to consider that many other subjects are to be considered dealing with other countries than Russia. The Prime Minister said nothing about any other of the war devastated areas, but simply about Germany and Russia, and the chief part of his speech was confined to Russia.
The two questions which ought to be considered by the House are, what does Russian trade mean to this country and to our Dominions, and to the British Empire at large, and what are the conditions which have been laid down for the admission of Russia to the comity of nations? I propose to deal with the question of trade first. As usual, it is a question of money—loans and advances. We do not know how much. The foreign Press has suggested a loan of £20,000,000. Obviously that is absolutely absurd. It is not approaching the fringe of dealing with the subject of the restoration of trade and industry in Central Europe—not even entering upon the fringe of dealing with the conditions in Russia. We should be much better advised, if we are going to spend public money, or encourage the spending of the savings of the people in this country, or the accumulation of capital on enterprises for the development of trade and the employment of our people in foreign trade, to look to those countries where previous experience has shown that we have been able to do a large business, and not to turn to that part of our foreign business which was the least remunerative and the least in volume of any which existed in the period immediately preceding the War. What has this Government done to develop trade within the British Empire—trade worth in 1913 £208,000,000 out of the total of £634,000,000 of our export trade? They are under engagement with our Colonies to take measures immediately to promote inter-Imperial trade. Practically nothing has been done. We are under engagement to promote trade with our Allies—with France, Portugal and others. No commercial treaty has been negotiated. Not
one of those engagements has been redeemed. What has been done to negotiate commercial treaties with the Argentine and the other countries in South America, formerly large customers, of ours with which we did large business? Nothing has been done.
That field has been utterly neglected, and we find the whole energies of the British Government now turned to the restoration of Europe, to set up foreign trade which out of a total of £634,000,000 in 1913 only accounted for some £97,000,000, or one-seventh part. These figures are very significant. The Russian portion of that trade is inconsiderable. The trade with Germany was the greatest. The whole of our trade with Russia before the War consisted of £27,000,000 per annum, and of that export trade a very large quantity was coal, various raw materials, and something less than £10,000,000 of manufactured or partially manufactured goods. I asked a question the other day about the trade which has been done with Russia under the Trade Agreement. The reply was that the total trade for 11 months was a little over £2,300,000. The Trade Agreement is a failure, and those whom I have consulted, who are well acquainted with the condition of Russian trade, assure me they do-not believe that figure is a true figure. They believe it is exaggerated. The Prime Minister said Russian trade was of great value to our Dominions. I think he said India sold £60,000,000 worth to Russia before the War. That is quite untrue. A friend of mine examined the Board of Trade returns, and found that the sale of goods in 1913 by India to Russia was only £1,750,000. I cannot imagine where the Prime Minister has got his figures.

Sir W. BARTON: Pounds weight.

Colonel GRETT0N: These figures are really very remarkable. It is worth examining the reason. The truth of the matter is that Russia, owing to her present Government and the utter, disorganisation which they have produced during the past four years, is in a state of bankruptcy, collapse, and ruin. The greatest industry in Russia was agriculture, which accounted for 63 per cent. of her total exports before the War. Agriculture has utterly collapsed. All the spare stores of grain which the peasants
kept have gone. It should be remembered by those who consider these agricultural questions in Russia that before there was intensive cultivation, organised on a large scale by the large landowners, Russia produced only enough corn for the consumption of her own peasants and the feeding of her own towns. The export trade of Russia before the War, which was the result of the organisation of the large landowners and the intensive methods, has all gone. The large land owners are driven out of the country or killed. The peasants have been robbed again and again by the emissaries of the Bolshevist Government and by the Red Armies. They have been plundered to supply the towns. All their small reserves have gone, and they sow only just enough to keep themselves alive. The crops in Russia were ruined in 1919 and 1920. In spite of that there is famine in great areas in Russia and nothing can be done to relieve it. The railways are out of repair. Sixty per cent, of the rolling stock is useless, the whole railway system is disorganised, and there, are no roads. Hon. Members speak from time to time about the great need of agricultural machinery. There is abundant agricultural machinery now in Russia. and it cannot be used. There is no transport. The roads are very poor, and they are not suitable for motors and motor tractors. The problem is one which requires not one or two seasons, but a generation to solve, once the system has broken down. There never was a greater delusion presented to the people of this country than the idle legend of the bursting corn bins of Russia. It is lamentable. We all deplore the position. But to think that Russia will for many years to come be in a position to export grain in any quantity is a complete delusion. The gap that has been created in the world supply by the want of Russian export has been filled by increased production in Canada and the Argentine.
Then we turn to the whole matter of manufactures. Russia's manufactures and industries were managed and organised chiefly by foreigners—largely by Germans. I am told there were some £200,000,000 of investments in industrial enterprises of one kind and another. That has all been seized by the present Government. Some of it has been destroyed
beyond repair. Only the other day it was said that the export trade of Russia must be organised by the Government. It is still their policy, or was a few days ago, to continue their Communist system and prevent all private enterprise. I can give two cases. I hope the House will not expect me to use any names or to be too particular in the instances I give. There was the case of the Odessa tramways, owned by a public company. Those tram ways fell into ruin owing to disuse and lack of upkeep. The owners were encouraged by the Bolshevists to repair them. They did so, and at the same time they were required to make a considerable deposit of money as a pledge of their good faith. When the tramways were repaired and in working order they were taken over immediately by the local Soviet, and their owners were driven away. When they went for redress to the Moscow Government they were told that the Odessa Soviet was quite right, and could do what it liked, and that no redress could be given. When they asked for their deposit, with very great difficulty they got half of it handed back. That is the encouragement for foreign loans and enterprises in Russia.
Take another case. The owner of a factory, not a British subject, applied to the Soviet Government to be allowed to re-open his factory and to start work. He collected all the savings he had and got the factory going. Directly it started he was interfered with, as usual, by the local people. He was driven away and got no redress. That man is utterly ruined. The same sort of thing happened in regard to some oil works. The enterprise was stopped. The workmen employed were better fed and better paid than other local workmen employed by the Bolshevists. The result was that the Bolshevist workmen were jealous. They went to this prosperous oil well, drove away the workmen, burned the works, and shut down the engine. What is to be done with foreign enterprise in Russia under such conditions? Nothing. The whole idea is a delusion as long as the Bolshevist Government exists in Russia. The United States Government is thoroughly aware of this. The United States Government was invited to take part in the Conference at Genoa. The Americans declined, and stated that in their opinion the Conference was in fact to be a political Conference and not purely an economic or financial
Conference. They also said in their reply:
It is only in the productivity of Russia that there is any hope for the Russian people. It is idle to expect the resumption of trade until the economic basis of production is securely established. Production is conditional upon the safety of life, the recognition of firm guarantees of private property, the sanctity of contract, and the rights of free labour. If fundamental changes are contemplated involving due regard for the protection of persons and property and the establishment of conditions essential to the maintenance of commerce, this Government will be glad to have convincing evidence of the consummation of such changes; and until this evidence is supplied this Government is unable to perceive that there is any proper basis for considering trade relations.
The Bolshevists have refused to come to any agreement whatsoever before going to Genoa. Judging from the speech of the Prime Minister, if they refuse to accept the conditions, unsatisfactory as they are, agreed upon at Cannes, the whole reason for the Conference will disappear. Why, then, drag the representatives of 30 nations to Genoa? Why take the 100 Ministers, exports, secretaries, typists, and others who represent great Britain to Genoa? The whole matter might have been settled by the usual interchange of diplomatic notes without any expense comparable to what will be incurred at Genoa. No one wants this Conference except the Prime Minister. Even the Labour party do not want it, because it is not being held under conditions of which they approve The Conference has become a political Conference, affording a platform for the Prime Minister once more to display himself before the eyes of an admiring world, and to come back with new pæons of triumph in order to appeal to the country to support him at the approaching General Election. I and those who think with me feel deeply the degradation to which Great Britain is being brought by these constant activities, abortive in results, lamentable in methods, and futile from beginning to end. We have had too many conferences. Has not the time come to go back to the older methods of diplomacy, when trained representatives of the various nations met and consulted together and referred their proposals to their Governments. It is a method far surer in its result than constant invasion by amateurs, only partially instructed in their subject, far less dangerous to the amity of nations, and far less liable to bring about friction
between Governments and peoples. I have here a quotation from a document addressed by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Marquis Curzon, relative to breaches of the Russian Trade Agreement, so lately as September of last year. I suppose the Government still adheres to the protest it then made. Lord Curzon then stated:
It is with profound disappointment that His Majesty's Government are obliged to register the fact that, although five months have elapsed since Mr. Tchitcherin's assurance was given, the hostile activities, upon the cessation of which the successful working of the Agreement depends, still continue unabated. His Majesty's Government, are, moreover, in possession of indisputable evidence that the objectionable activities are due to the direct instigation of the Soviet Government. It still appears quite incapable of realising that a constant flow of inflammatory invective delivered by its leading representatives against the existing institutions of this country is an absolute barrier to the renewal of correct relations, and that actual hostile activities by its agents must necessarily prompt the belief that its desire for such relations is insincere.
We may wonder. Mr. Krassin has established sumptuous offices in the City of London, and we are informed that the Russian Government has bought for him a very commodious and comfortable house, and that they have made him their envoy and accredited representative here. They made agreements that they would not interfere with the internal affairs of foreign Governments, and yet our foreign Minister has had to make a protest surely without parallel in the history of civilised Governments. The truth of the matter is that the Bolshevist Government depends entirely on propaganda, which must go forward or it will fall. Russia is reduced absolutely to a state of bankruptcy and ruin, and if they care little for Russia, they care as little for the rest of the world. These men who rule Russia are said to be only 120,000 to 200,000 in number. They have under their command an armed force of upwards of one million men. Their War Minister the other day claimed that the numbers of the Red Army were 1½ millions under arms. It is safe, therefore, to say that the numbers exceed one million. Yet we hear hon. Members in this House and in the country complain of other nations being militarist, while this Red Terror in Russia has in hand the greatest military force in the whole of the world. The
Bolshevist Government has destroyed at least one million and a quarter Russians of all ranks in the community. Their activity of murder is directed against those who are well educated and instructed—Government officials, priests, intelligentia, and all sorts, hundreds of thousands of people who have ventured to express any view in disagreement with Bolshevist propaganda.
There is no hope for trade with Russia. It is a delusion to represent to the people of this country that they can obtain any employment for years to come by means of any trade agreement with Russia. A trade agreement with Russia might be of value to Germany. We know that Germans have been over to this country endeavouring to obtain for their trade with Russia capital which they are not able at present to raise in Germany. Why should we assist to bolster up German trade with Russia? Surely that is not a British interest in any shape or form. This Conference at Genoa is built on unsound foundations. It has not the full support or approval of our allies the French, or of our friends the Italians, and it is utterly repudiated by the United States. Under such conditions it cannot by any possibility bring about those great results which have been held out to us. Many Members here, whether they say so or not, profoundly distrust the methods of this Government. There is too wide a latitude in the terms of the Resolution. We have not sufficient information given us to enable us to judge what is really intended, except that it may set up close relations with the present Russian Government. We want more information if we are to give it our full confidence. We want to know what else it is intended to do at Genoa except to enter into these relations with Russia. We are told that it will be all right, and that the Government will come back to the House of Commons for ratification of the proposals made. The House of Commons has had experience of things of that kind. We were told that the Irish Free State Agreement was to be submitted to the approval of the House, and yet the House was dragooned at every possible point. The Government said, "If you alter one line or comma or syllable, you will ruin the Treaty." They said, "Take it as it stands, or you will overthrow the Govern-
ment." Is that fair treatment of the House? In the United States that is what is called bull dozing.
7.0. P.M.
I suggest that if there is to be any value whatsoever in the undertakings of the Government and any agreements at Genoa are to be submitted to the House for ratification, we must have a definite pledge from the Government that the House is to have full opportunity of considering every point on its merits. Having had experience of the ways of this Government, anything short of that is valueless to the House of Commons. We shall have some instrument or agreement shown to us, and we shall be told that we are already pledged to it in principle, that we have affirmed our confidence in the representatives who are going to Genoa, and that we must take what they have done, whether it be good or bad, or we shall overthrow the Government of the day. To these conditions I submit we cannot agree, and we ought not to agree to the main Motion of the Government; we ought to vote against that Motion unless we have much more detailed information given to us. I think, and many others do also, that it is a very great misfortune at the present time that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be dragged off to Genoa when he is preparing his Budget. He is taken away from the consideration of the grievances and difficulties of various sections of the community who at this period of the year would come to lay before him the position in which they stand with regard to taxation. There is no subject more vital to this country than the subject of taxation, and it is a great evil that the Chancellor of the Exchequer at this time should be taken from his duties and should have to apply his attention elsewhere. I thank the House for their forbearance with me in my few remarks, and I hope that we shall be able to extract from the Government in the course of the Debate to-day some further explanation of their policy.

Sir DONALD MACLEAN: I do not hope to be able to take the place of my right hon. Friend and leader (Mr. Asquith) in any respect except one, and that is in the brevity of the remarks for which I ask the House to give me its indulgence. We are faced with a very remarkable position to-day. We have the Prime Minister of one of the most powerful
Governments of modern times, now in the third year of its existence, coming down and moving a Vote of Confidence in himself and his Government I should have thought that the tone and the general run of his remarks would have expressed confidence in himself and his Government, and that he would have used the formula which is obtaining so much in these times that "we are getting better and better and better every day," but, instead of that, we have the announcement of an, early demise. He practically told the House that the Government were getting worse and worse and worse every day. He said his was the speech of a dying Minister. Judging by the physical energy he showed to the House in his speech of considerable length, I think he was referring only to his political demise, which certainly I will welcome with all my heart. As I listened to that speech, I was asking myself this question the whole time: "Why are we face to face with a Vote of Confidence for Genoa?" Is this the first conference that has been held? Not at all. It is the eleventh, and in regard to the other conferences, certainly not any less in interest or width of scope or the gravity of their issues, no Vote of Confidence was sought from this House. Even in regard to Spa, where one of the main questions was reparations, which is expressly ruled out from this particular Conference, there was no suggestion that the House should give its confidence and its welcome and its cheer to the Government on their way.
This Conference was foreshadowed at Cannes on the 9th of January, and the date actually fixed for it was 8th March Why did it not come off on the 8th March? We remember that there was a great deal of talk about an election in February, and that certainly, I think, was not unconnected with the postponing of this Conference. I have not the slightest doubt that if my Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir George Younger) had not left his lower deck position and gone on to the bridge and directed the course of the ship, by this time the Government would have been dead and buried and all the wits would have been polishing its epitaphs. The real reason for all this has just entered the House (Sir George Younger). Several efforts have been made, as we know, to adjust these differences, but to-day has been held on the Floor of the House of Commons the
Parliamentary meeting which should have been held at the Carlton Club or some other place of the kind. But, being face to face with this Motion, we must discuss it as seriously as we can. Why should all the preliminaries have been shrouded in such mystery? I attempted to get some information from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House the other day and failed completely. My right hon. Friend the Member, for Paisley, my leader, made a similar attempt and even he failed, and I thought, as we all thought, that there must have been some wonderful secret locked in the breast of the Prime Minister; but, obviously, he has not given any indication of it to this House. We find simply this, that the Genoa Conference is reduced to a Brussels Conference over again. Reparations are not to be discussed at all. I see M. Poincarè has spoken very frankly on this matter. He said in Paris, the day before yesterday, I suppose:
We shall be a party at Genoa to no direct or indirect revision of the Treaty of Versailles We shall set up as regards the Treaty of Versailles a notice-board with the word 'Verboten.' If any attempt he made to pass beyond it we shall reserve our liberty of action.
We were directed to-day to look to a very remarkable situation which was to develop if the Genoa Conference were held under successful conditions. Reparations have been ruled out, and reparations having been left out, you are really moving along a plane of minor details compared to what the issue would have been if you had reparations under discussion. Two years ago, after the Conference of Lympne, which was held between the Prime Minister and M. Millerand, the official communiqué stated:
In order to mark the definite beginning of the era of peace it is important to arrive at a settlement which would embrace the whole body of international liabilities which have been left as the legacy of the War and which will at the same time ensure the parallel liquidation of the Inter-Allied debts and the separate debts of the Central Empires.
Two year's ago—that was the very beginning of anything that should be done to settle the question of reparations. The very foundation of the peace of Europe, regarding which the Prime Minister expressed an aspiration in which we all join, depends on the settlement of this question of reparations, of getting the liquidation
of Inter-Allied debts, and the separate debts of the Central Empires. Without these three questions settled you can do nothing. Your Brussels Conference settled these things 18 months ago. Eighteen months ago you sent your experts to Brussels, and I venture to say that they were much better qualified to deal with these limited financial details than the plenipotentiaries and all the rest of them who are going to Genoa. At Brussels there were business men representing the United States, Germany—I think Russia was excluded, but all the other nations were in it—and they came to a set of conclusions and gave advice which should have been followed, but we are to have another Conference with men not so fitted to deal with the questions as those who were at Brussels. The whole position shows that the motion before the House to-day has no real relation to these matters at all. It is a domestic matter which the Prime Minister is endeavouring to settle.
For a minute or two, I wish to examine one or two other points. The outline of this Conference is a summary of the past failures of the Government. After "three years what are they going to try to do? They are trying to restore the economic life of Europe, to re-establish confidence between the nations, to establish the relations between all the countries on the basis of a stable and enduring peace, and they are trying to find out how the existing impediments to the free exchange of the products of the different countries are to be removed. Meantime, they have passed the Safeguarding of Industries Act, and they kept on developing control until the last possible moment, when they were driven from their positions by the protests of the country. Then the Prime Minister comes down here and with remarkable assurance asks us to start off with him all over again, after three years. Is it any wonder that on the Notice Paper to-day we have these Motions declaring that, however excellent the objects of the Conference may be, we have no confidence in His Majesty's Government in going there? They have failed lamentably already. What assurance have we that they are going to be successful now? There is none. Here we come to a question which excited a great deal of interest—the question of Russia. The Prime Minister appealed to his followers with regard to that. The
real reason why the Government have failed so signally to secure some of those objects, or part of those objects, to which I have just referred, is that they have not had any consistent policy about anything. In 1919 we had an army in Northern Russia. When we had given up that project of the Secretary of State for the Colonies we bent our energies to subsidising and assisting Koltchak, Denikin and Yudenitch.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Churchill): You said that we were under an honourable obligation.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I was the first in the House to denounce the policy of the right hon. Gentleman in Russia. I have been consistent.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I should have no difficulty in furnishing the right hon. Gentleman with quotations of his remarks, saying that it was an obligation of honour.

Sir D. MACLEAN: We had to withdraw our troops that were over there. That was the obligation of honour. But there it is, a policy of insincerity in making peace and inefficiency in making war. The Government were no good at one or the other. Test them where you like: that is where they fail. My point with regard to these matters is this, that the Prime Minister, and those mainly associated with him, had a very good idea of what was the right thing to do, but they failed to do it. We have had published a Memorandum, to which reference has been made several times. It expressed what was the Prime Minister's idea of the foundations upon which peace ought to be made, and we remember what an upset it was, and that there were hundreds of Members protesting against this being the policy of the Government. I remember very well the Prime Minister in this House leading us to believe that he had no responsibility at all for the policy set out in the Memorandum.

The PRIME MINISTER indicated dissent.

Sir D. MACLEAN: The Prime Minister knows the right as well as anybody, but he yielded to other forces, which in other days he fought against with us, and allowed himself to be led along the wrong path, and we are paying very dearly for
that to-day. I am not speaking with any sort of personal bias or animus against the Prime Minister, but sometimes he seems to me like Dr. Jekyll and at other times like Mr. Hyde. I do not know whether he is Dr. Lloyd or Mr. George when he addresses us to-day. That is the trouble about the whole thing. There is no consistent policy. There is no going on a certain line consistently, whether it is to win or lose. The few sentences with which the Prime Minister closed his speech were an appeal to the Die-hards. They amounted to this: "Watch the elections." I did not learn my policy from that school. Neither did he learn his, and I should have thought that, if ho had anything of the Die-hard in him at all, it has got nothing to do with elections. I have nothing myself to do with them. The results of elections do not deflect me, and in the end, whether I see it or not, those principles are going to win. That is what I understand by politics. The very phrase, Die-hard, if it means anything at all, mean3 that you have a principle by which you are going to stand, no matter what the consequence. I say, "Hold on to what you think is right. If there is any soundness in your position time will justify it." The country wants to get back to straight politics, and it is because this Resolution, moved by the Prime Minister, is only another chapter in the degradation of politics, that is manœuvring to get past a difficult position in order to secure another jumping place tomorrow, that I shall vote for the Amendment of the Labour party.

Mr. BONAR LAW: I am very glad to be able to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) in the words which he himself used in beginning his speech this afternoon. From the point of view of interesting the House I am glad to say that he is becoming better and better. A principle on which I always used to act when I was in his present position was that the duty of an Opposition is to oppose, and I rather like to see it. But even from that point of view there were two criticisms in the speech of my right hon. Friend which I think he might have left out. He said that this Government could not conduce war. Coming from his party, that is a criticism which I would have thought it wiser to omit.

Dr. MURRAY: Wait and see.

Viscountess ASTOR: That is what you did.

Mr. BONAR LAW: The right hon. Gentleman said that the last portion of the Prime Minister's speech was an appeal to the Die-Hards, showing that he was thinking of personal motives, but the end of the speech, as I understood it, had for its object, not to tell the Die-Hards or anybody else to take what they thought was the easy course, but to point out to them, and to the world if necessary, that they must consider the consequences of their action. That, to my mind, is a very different thing from advising people to go the way the cat jumps. I notice that in one respect my right hon. Friend and the Leader of the Labour party-have one view in common. They are satisfied that this is a dying Government. My right hon. Friend put this point more strongly than I have seen it put hitherto, and said that but for something which prevented an election, the Government would have been dead and buried long before this. That may be true, but, though I had not an opportunity of discussing the matter with him or his colleagues, I do read the newspapers which support them, and I have not been struck by any extreme eagerness to have the matter put to that particular test.
The only other remark made by the leader of the Labour party was one which, I hope, will be confined within these walls, where people understand it, and I hope that he will not make the same sort of speech on the platform. He actually told us that the unemployment to-day was duo to the payment by Germany of reparations. If that means anything, it means that, owing to the payment of reparations, German goods are flooding our markets to a far greater extent than before the War. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] That is the only possible meaning. What is going to happen in the future cannot affect the men who are unemployed to-day, and, instead of German goods flooding our market in a way in which they never did before, the proportion brought to this country-last year was only one-fourth of what it was before the War. Looking, also, to the argument as regards the future, I think that it needs reconsideration. One of the theories which he gave ns was, that if we compel the Germans to
work so hard, they will capture all the trade of the world. Does my right hon. Friend realise what that means? It amounts to this, that the more you tax a country, the better its trade will be. My recollection also of the speeches of my right hon. Friend and his colleagues is that the more cheap goods are coming into a country, the better for that country, wherever they come from, and whatever the cause of the cheapness. The argument will therefore require reconsideration from that point of view also.
There is very little I want to say about the Motion. I am compelled to say it is rather difficult to understand, on the one hand, why the Government should have put down this Resolution, and, on the other hand, why anyone should have objected to it. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is harmless!"] I see no reason for putting it down. The views of the Government as to this Conference were published at Cannes. The House knew exactly what they were, and if anyone had taken exception to them, it was open to him to raise the matter in the House. The Government would be entitled to say that, since it has not been raised, it may be assumed that there is no objection.
On the other hand, what is the meaning of the Amendment to the Motion? Why should these Amendments be put down, and, least of all, why should the Amendments be put down by people who believe in the Conference, but only think it does not go far enough. It is difficult to understand the reason, but we have the explanation. It is that they have put down the Amendments because my right hon. Friend is thinking of electioneering. I think we hear sometimes a little too much about electioneering. We over deify the Prime Minister from the point of view of his electioneering capacity. He probably understands that problem as well as anyone else in the House, and because he does understand it, I would say that anyone who says he is going to Genoa for the sake of political capital is a very foolish person. Whatever else may come out of it, it is certain that no political capital can be made out of it in time for any election, no matter how long it may be delayed. My right hon. Friend is setting out, in the phrase of the
right hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith), on a
dark and doubtful adventure.
Think of the enormous value of any result you can get. My hon. Friend the Member for Burton spoke as if Russia would be of no value in any circumstances; but she has resources which, if properly utilised, would enable her to pay off all her debts. How can any results come from this Conference in time to do any good at an election? How is it possible? I think the Conference is undertaken under the most difficult and trying auspices. To begin with, America is out, and from the point of view of any attempt to set the exchanges right—to restore the machinery which the Prime Minister spoke of—that is a terrible handicap. It is obvious to anyone that had there been any possibility of putting it off, or altering it, so as to get America to come in, it would have been worth any delay. I am perfectly certain that the Prime Minister realised this as well as anyone else.
Look at another aspect. It is true that, in attempting to restore the economic life of Germany, any scheme which does not take into account reparations is terribly handicapped The whole question of the possibility of the economic revival of Germany does depend on the relation of the economic system to the reparations they have to pay. Do not let me be supposed to be in sympathy with those who seem to imagine the whole source of trouble in Europe is because we are trying to make Germany pay. I agree with the Prime Minister that reparation has to be made. It has to be made by somebody, and the sole question is to what extent can Germany make it good, without shattering the whole foundation of her trade. Do not assume that it is impossible that Germany can pay a very large sum. When people complain about the Versailles Treaty that it did not settle once and for all the amount Germany had to pay, they do not know what they are talking about. There was not a man at the Peace Conference who would not have wished to fix the amount had it been possible to do so.
There is another handicap. I understand that armaments are not to be considered. This adds enormously to the difficulty of making the Conference a success, even from the economic point of
view. The essence of an improvement is the balancing of the Budget. That cannot be done without reference to armaments. I am certain that the Prime Minister will agree that though you might get all these nations to pass resolutions that they would not be aggressive against one another, those resolutions would be useless if these great armies are maintained. That kind of criticism means that either you have got to break with one of our Allies, or you have got to wait an indefinite time, till many of us are older, perhaps dead, before any attempt is made to deal with this great economic problem.
There is another handicap. Russia, as I have said, is the storehouse of the raw material of the world, but does anyone imagine that by any possible concatenation of circumstances Russia can have her trade renewed for years? She is now in a state of famine. The best that can be hoped, and I think it is too much to hope, is that there will be sufficient corn sown to prevent the people from starving next year. You must look therefore two years ahead before there is any possibility of exporting the great raw material of Russia.
These are tremendous handicaps, and it is my opinion, and I think the House will agree, that the Prime Minister, in face of these difficulties, in undertaking this task cannot be influenced by electioneering. It must be because he believes that it is possible to do something; and the fact that he is willing to try is one of the best proofs of his courage. What about electioneering from the other point of view? What about the electioneering of these Amendments? It is an unusual thing to use foreign politics as a means of attacking the Government of the day. Still more is it unusual when those who use them agree with the policy, and must feel that the Prime Minister is going as far as it is possible to carry our Allies with him in this matter. Is not this talk about electioneering nonsense to a great extent I have been a long time now a Member of this House. I have heard this sort of thing said often, and I know the chief actors in it. From the point of view of the interest taken in the elections, I doubt if there is much difference between politicians. The party leaders must,
of necessity, think of these things, and if anyone deny it, it is affectation, or worse. The Prime Minister and his critics take equal interest in electioneering. The only difference is, that when the Prime Minister devotes himself to it, he is better at it.
I have not touched on what is my chief interest, and has been my chief interest since I heard this Conference suggested. I have been afraid of two tilings—two very serious things. I was afraid that, in some way or other, recognition might be given to the Soviet Government when, in my judgment, it ought not to be given, and I was afraid, on the other hand, that a quixotic scheme, in the state of our own finance, in lending money to other countries, might be a danger, and one of the things to be guarded against. My fears on these points have been removed by a definite assurance given to us by the Government that there will not be any recognition until we have had an opportunity of hearing the whole circumstances; and as regards the financial obligations, it goes without saying that the House must be consulted. Of course, that means that we may find ourselves in the position that our delegates at this Conference have said that they will recommend to the House of Commons something with which we do not agree. That is the drawback, but what is the alternative? The alternative is either to say now, before we know what the plans are, that we do not approve, and will not sanction them, or to say that after we know exactly what it is proposed to do. It does not worry me for another reason.
I do not see why we should assume that the Government or the Prime Minister will come here with proposals which, on their merits, the House of Commons would not be ready to accept. I saw in the newspapers that Lenin had described the Prime Minister as a "great realist." When you come down to practical proposals he is a realist, and I have no reason to suppose that every consideration which would weigh with me would not weigh with the Government before they make these proposals. I am prepared to let them try. I am prepared to say that if they do make a plan which seems to me ought not to be accepted by the House of Commons, I shall have no hesitation, as far as I am concerned, in saying that I shall not accept it.
I said that those were the two things of which I was afraid. Let me consider them more closely. First, as to the recognition of the Soviet Government. As long as I was a member of the Prime Minister's Government, I think I agreed with him on his Russian policy. I certainly felt as strongly as he did that it was folly to try to impose your will on Russia from without as to the kind of Government it should have. We have been told that we had tried and continued such an attempt. The only justification for it was that men were engaged in it who had been our allies in the War against the Germans, and we were not at liberty to leave them alone. It may be that we went further than was necessary. I do not argue that. But I never shall for a moment doubt that, just as the invasion of France by the European Powers strengthened the French Revolution, so any attempt to press your will from without on Russia will not destroy, but will strengthen, the Government of Russia.
I was also in favour of the Trade Agreement with Russia, not because I thought that any great volume of trade would result. I said so at the time, and I think the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was responsible for the Agreement, said so himself. We never expected it, but we did think that if there were any trade, there was nothing immoral or improper in our getting our share of it. There was another consideration which I think it was right for the Government to take into account. We knew perfectly well, long before it came to anything like its present form, that there was going to be acute unemployment in this country. We knew that people all over the country were saying: "Make terms with Russia, trade with Russia, and there will be no unemployment." I say, therefore, it was our duty, if it could be done, to make trade with Russia possible, and to let people see that it was not our fault if trade was not being done.
But to make a trade agreement is a very different thing from de jure recognition. We had the same difficulty at the time of the French Revolution. When Louis XVI was imprisoned, the French ambassador was sent away, and we no longer recognised the new Government. But up to the outbreak of the War, there was free trade between the two countries
as far as conditions made it possible. I think that is right, but there is something else we have got to consider, and it is vital in a matter of this kind. I would do nothing to try to overthrow the Russian Government from outside; but just as little, or even less, would I take any step such as recognition might mean which would strengthen that Government against a possible change from within. That I would not do.
Let us consider what are the conditions. The Prime Minister in his speech this afternoon read quotations from a speech of Lenin's which I noticed were very interesting to my hon. Friend's opposite. [HON. MEMBERS: "They were very old."] I think they agreed with him in their hearts that Communist Government has broken down. We have been told, until we are getting tired of it, that the Bolshevist Government was going to come to an end next week. We have been told that constantly, but it has not done so yet, and as far as I can judge there is as little prospect of it ending now as at any previous time. That does not alter the fact in my belief that a Communist Government is impossible, and cannot last. It will be said that this Russian Government has lasted for 4½ years. Let it be remembered that the Revolutionary Government in France lasted for 10 years, at least, before Napoleon made a military dictatorship. It is bound to break down, and there are two ways in which it can break down. It can break down by a change of view on the part of the people who constitute the Government. The Prime Minister, as I gather from his speech, and from his extracts from the speeches of Lenin, thinks that is going to happen, or has happened. I am not so sure of that. That speech was made in November, and spoke of the restoration of the right of private property, but if that were the policy adopted, it would have been done by now. I read another speech. I read everything in reference to this Russian bog, where it is so difficult to know what is true, and what is untrue. I read a speech the other day made by Lenin, in which in effect, he says, "We have made the experiment; it has gone far enough and we are going to stop it."
I believe myself that that kind of Government is impossible, and that you will gain nothing by trading with it. Indeed, there cannot be any trade. The
French Revolution, bad as it was, never made a law so extreme as that there should be no private ownership of property, and, whatever the Russian Government may do or may promise, if the system in its own country is that there is no private property, then trading with Russians is a contradiction in terms. It cannot be done, and I have no belief in any other kind of trading that may be proposed. All this does not mean that I would be one of those to say in no circumstances will we give de jure recognition to the Russian Government. On the contrary, if the conditions, as I understand them, are carried out, I would recognise it to-morrow, but, I am bound to say, that I believe these conditions are impossible under this kind of Government. In this I am certain I am saying nothing which the Prime Minister does not say, and with which he will not agree. I am not prepared to give de jure recognition while depending on any promises or on something the Russian Government are going to do. I am quite ready to meet them when they have restored civilised relationships of other countries, but not on promises, and nobody ought to know that better than the Prime Minister. He said so in his speech to-day, and, what is more, at the very time we were making the Trade Agreement with Russia, we had to turn out one of the delegates, because he was breaking one of the promises which his Government had made. I have no reason to believe that the heart of that Government has changed. If it has, I should be the first to be delighted, but I do not believe it has. The whole soul of this movement up to now—and in this it resembles the French Revolution—has been: "We will fight the capitalistic Governments in their own countries by our methods of propaganda.' That has got to stop, and we must be sure it is going to stop.
There is only one thing more I should like to say. Anyone would be foolish in the extreme who belittled the possibilities of a revival in Europe, or who, because we could not get everything at the Conference, was not willing to try to get something. That would be folly. But perhaps it is as easy to exaggerate its importance as to minimise it, and it is not any wiser. Of course, the recovery of Europe would be of immense advantage to the world, and above all to us, because
of our trading with foreign countries. I think, however, the Prime Minister indicated that that can only be done by time. The wounds of nations, like the wounds of men, must be healed from the bottom, and if there be any empirical attempt to heal the surface while it is festering below you will do far more harm than good. Therefore, if you have to wait for the recovery of our trade until Central Europe has been set right, the prospect is black indeed.
But I do not think we have any need to be so pessimistic. The trade is important, but after all let us measure it. In the last year before the War, our total exports of everything produced in this country to the European countries where the exchange has gone to pieces—Germany, Russia, Austro-Hungary, and the Balkan States—were only 14 per cent. of the total. We have become so accustomed to the commonplace that this country depends on its foreign trade that we do not realise what is the actual trade position. Of our total production of all kinds before the War, 70 per cent. was consumed in the United Kingdom, and only 30 per cent. exported. The 14 per cent. of the 30 per cent. means something like 7½ per cent. of our total production. Should my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer find it possible to reduce taxation in his next Budget, it is not at all improbable that, we should have a revival of the home market quite equal to all we were doing with these countries. That does not deal with the whole problem. We must export this 30 per cent., or we cannot buy the food and the raw materials on which we depend for our existence. But if you leave trade alone, it has a great knack of adjusting itself to conditions, however bad.
8.0. P.M.
There are possibilities of increasing export. Before the War our exports to our own self-governing Dominions were two or three times as great as the exports to the whole of these European countries. As the Prime Minister pointed out, that does not tell the whole story. The power of these Dominions to buy is regulated by what they sell. If they sell more to other countries, it is possible for them to buy more from us. Making every fair allowance for that, however, when we realise that the great bulk of our manufactures have always gone to the undeveloped countries like the Dominions, South America, and, to a certain extent, like China, and that these countries, because they pro-
duced raw materials at excessive prices during the War, are really wealthier than they were before the War, I think it is not too much to hope for better trade. I myself believe that if we get rid of labour troubles at home—I do not mean that as in any way suggesting that we should be cutting down wages—but if we can get rid of labour troubles, and get the cost of production reduced to the lowest level—. that does not mean only wages—in a very short time, and I think there are already signs of it, we shall have reason to hope that trade will become almost normal. I have indicated that I shall vote for the Resolution. I have indicated also that I have not the same faith in the results of the Conference as my right hon. Friend (the Prime Minister). But I am not suprised at that, and I am not arrogant enough to think that he is likely to be wrong, and that I am likely to be right. I saw him over and over again during the War undertake enterprises which seemed almost hopeless, and he carried them through to success. Though I have not the same faith as he has, I hope he will have the same success in this effort, and; if he has, it will be a lasting triumph far more important than any electioneering consideration.

Lord ROBERT CECIL: Like all the speeches which my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Glasgow (Mr. Bonar Law) delivers, the one to which we have just listened has delighted the House. I could not help feeling that it was an exceedingly characteristic speech. My right hon. Friend, as far as I understood him, accepted all the arguments against the Genoa Conference which have been urged, both by what are called the Diehard section and by the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who sit behind me, and, accepting all those arguments, he stated that he should support the Resolution. [An HON. MEMBER: "And run away."] No, I do not say that. He a little reminded me of a very old legal story, which I have no doubt is familiar to many Members of this House, of a learned Judge who was sitting between two of his brethren who differed, and he had a very poor opinion of each of them. When he came to give judgment, he said, "I agree with my brother on the right for the reasons given by my brother on the left," and that very much is the conclusion to
which my right hon. Friend arrives. He agrees with the Government on the question of the Genoa Conference for the reasons given on that subject by all sections of the Opposition. It was also rather characteristic of my right hon. Friend that his whole argument in favour of voting for the Resolution was: "I can see no possible good that can come out of the Genoa Conference; every aspect of it is depressing, and therefore the Government must have had some reason for going into it. I cannot see any reason whatever, and I shall in consequence support the Government."
My right hon. Friend discussed with his usual extraordinary lucidity some of the difficulties under which we labour, and he pointed out, what no doubt is quite true, that it is very easy to exaggerate the figures of foreign trade as part of the whole trade of this country. That is quite true, but where my right hon. Friend really a little understated the case was this, that if you take out of the machine of world trade a section of it—it does not really matter very much whether it is a big section or a small section—you arrest the whole machine. That is really what has happened. It must not pass through our minds on the mere figures of the foreign trade. It is an essential part of European trade before the War, an essential part of the economic unity of the world, and if you once paralyse that section, then the whole of the rest of the machine must necessarily suffer. There is another thing for which I do not think my right hon. Friend made sufficient allowance. He did not allow for the enormous importance of confidence in trade, and the fact that there are many millions of the most industrious and progressive of human beings in conditions of the greatest possible difficulty throughout Europe throws a profound gloom on the rest of the world and makes it very difficult for any part of it to recover that confidence without which no trading operations can be carried on. In spite of all my right hon. Friend said, I do not myself doubt—and I do not think he would on further consideration—that the recovery of Europe is of vital interest to this country and, indeed, to the whole world. The commercial world cannot recover, our industries cannot recover, until we have set Europe on its legs again, and not only the other countries but Germany and Russia as well, and
perhaps particularly. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, I have never objected to an economic Conference.
I notice that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister suggested that there were large numbers of people who objected to conferences as a whole, but until my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton) spoke, I did not know there was anybody who objected to conferences. I should have thought it was perfectly evident that you must have conferences. You have had conferences at every stage of diplomatic history. There is nothing new about them. After the Napoleonic ware there were constant international conferences, attended by Ministers of the Crown, and since that time there have been conferences from time to time. I was amazed to find that anyone could object to conferences, but you may well object to the way in which certain conferences have been held and certain conferences have been summoned. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, I think, very much underrates the profound feeling of distrust which is created, not only by other events that have taken place in the last three years, but by the Cannes Conference itself. Apparently, for all that anyone outside could see, that Conference was summoned in a desperate hurry. It was got together as a kind of improvisation. It was supposed to be going to deal with the most important questions affecting the whole future of Europe. There did not appear to be any preparation made for it, there did not appear to be any sufficient thought given to it. That was the impression, not only in this country, but in France. It was thought to be a mere manœuvre and not a really serious contribution to solving the difficulties of Europe. That is what filled people with distrust, and when, as the outcome of the Cannes Conference, held under the conditions which we all remember, you had a sudden proposal for a new and very elaborate Conference, a world or European Conference, I am not surprised myself that a very great deal of distrust was created, so that the Government have only themselves to blame if, searching about for motives for this extraordinary way of dealing with international subjects, suggestions of electioneering and the like were made, and not altogether unnaturally made.
The Prime Minister has explained to us, even now in the course of this Debate,
the extreme difficulty of approaching this subject in the kind of way in which the Government ask us to approach it. Just look at what has happened about this, very Debate. Our efforts to know what it was that was going to be discussed were very meagrely complied with; in reply to our questions about the Boulogne Agreement, and the modifications of the Genoa Conference, we were referred to this Debate and told that nothing could be said about that. All this produced an air of mystery and as if there were some great secret which was going to be burst on the House which was to be a justification of this very sudden and very elaborate Conference, yet when we come to listen to the Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) is surely right when he says that, as far as the mass of what the Prime Minister outlined was concerned, it was merely a repetition of what had already been discussed and dealt with at the Brussels Conference 18 months ago. I hope we are going to have at Genoa something more than the Brussels Conference, for the history of the Brussels Conference is not encouraging. The report was admirable, and the recommendations, I believe, hold the field. I do not think they could be improved upon in their own line by anything that will take place at Genoa, but what has been done? This Government has done something, but foreign Governments have done very little, and in regard to this Government, to take one instance, what was the immediate result of the Brussels Conference? The Brussels Conference laid stress on this, that all barriers between nations should be thrown down, that no artificial difficulties should be allowed to exist. This Government replied by passing the Reparation Act, the Dyestuffs Act, and the Safeguarding of Industries Act. I venture to say that if their real purpose is to make the policy of Brussels effective, they would do much more by repealing those Acts than by attending the Genoa Conference.
What else is to be done at Genoa? My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had some "very cryptic observations about the necessity of getting back to a gold standard in some form or another. I do not know—I do not pretend to be an expert—but I should have thought some of his views on that point would require-
very careful consideration, but what is the Genoa Conference going to do on that point? What is it going to do about the gold standard? What is the step that the Genoa Conference can take to restore the currency of Europe? To be quite plain, the collapse of the currency and the collapse of the exchanges is not a cause but a symptom, and no body of men has ever said anything more decisive on that point than the Brussels Conference itself. If you are going to approach it by any attempt at direct action on the exchanges, you will unquestionably make things worse and not better than they are at the present time. Beyond that, the Prime Minister told us that the great thing was Russia. I was surprised to hear my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Glasgow, who has just spoken, saying he agreed with all the Government's Russian policy. I should have thought it passed the wit of man to do that, for if there is one thing you cannot do it is to agree with a thing which is constantly self-contradictory. But he did say that, and he went on to explain what grave misgivings he had about this newest development of Russian policy, how he was against it, as far as I could make out, if it were to have any political result at all, and that he had the gravest doubts that it would have any commercial or economic results.
What is the policy? I really do not know. I do not know what it is the Prime Minister is going to do about Russia when he gets to Genoa, I agree most fully that the restoration of Russia is vital to this country. It is very important that we should get the great Russian people, with the great Russian resources, diverted from a position of hostility to the rest of Europe, and that the Russian people should march along in the efforts to restore the shattered conditions under which we live. But what the Government propose in the matter I really do not know. They have some plan of making what they call peace with Russia. I did not know we were at war with Russia. They are going to make some kind of treaty with Russia. The Prime Minister did not tell us what, but, apparently, when that treaty has been made, it is to be followed by a renewal of relations with Russia. If he can succeed in making a treaty on reasonable terms with Russia, if he can really
get some security that that treaty may be carried out, no one will rejoice more than I shall at the renewal of relations with Russia, but do let us deal with the thing straightforwardly and honestly. If we want relations with Russia, we want them. What was all this talk about a probationary period, and that there were to be Chargés d'Affaires? That was in order to soothe my hon. Friends below the Gangway. What does it mean? What is the difference whether you have a Chargé d'Affaires or a Minister? What is the real practical difference? I see my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary on the Bench. Let him tell me what is the practical difference whether you are represented by a Chargé d'Affaires or a Minister Plenipotentiary. He knows there is no practical difference. But I agree that you have got to get Russia back to the economic comity of Europe, and, until you have done it, you will not solve the question of economic reconstruction. Here, again, I cannot help feeling that a little action by the Government would be worth all their protestations. I think a little courageous policy to assist the Russian famine would have done far more, both morally and materially, to restore the position with regard to Russia than any of the policy that has been announced.
I am bound to explain why it is I cannot support the Motion put forward. The Motion asks us to accept the Cannes Resolutions as a basis for this Conference. We now know that the Cannes Resolutions have several very serious limitations. To begin with, they cut this Conference off altogether from the League of Nations. I listened very carefully to the Prime Minister to see whether he would indicate that in any respect whatever the Genoa Conference was to be associated with the League. That is a very important matter. I do not believe in having these conferences and general talk—general agreements, if you like—unless you provide the machinery for making those agreements effective. You have created a great international machinery at Geneva. Why on earth should you not employ that machinery, if your Genoa Conference is to be a real thing? I think it would have done a great deal to increase the confidence of this House and country in the Genoa Conference if we had been told that though, unhappily, as I think, the League was
not asked to take part in summoning it, yet its machinery would be at the service of the Conference, and its spirit would inform it. I think that would have done a great deal to gratify public opinion not only in this country, but, unless I very much misread what is taking place in France, French public opinion also.
With regard to the subjects at the Conference, disarmament is not to be one. My right hon. Friend who has just spoken pointed out with irresistible force that you will never really get peace in Europe until you get disarmament. I entirely agree. I agree most fully with him that you must, at any rate, pari passu, agree on the question of disarmament as well as on all other questions of removing suspicion and enmities. I think it is deplorable that you should have a great conference which is not to deal with disarmament at all. But the other specific limitations are almost worse. There is the question of reparations, which has been repeatedly referred to. The Prime Minister has assured us that the Boulogne Conference had made no difference at all, had not in any way added to the limitations of the Genoa Conference; but that is not the account which comes from semiofficial French sources. Let me read to the House what was said by the Havas Agency immediately after the Boulogne meeting:
Article VI of the Cannes Resolutions is to be so construed as to leave intact the rights of the Allies to inflict penalties on Germany for non-fulfilment of her obligations under the Versailles Treaty.
That is to say, the provision against aggression is not to apply as between France and Germany. The limitation of armaments in Europe is to be excluded from discussion. This was all settled at Boulogne. The Governments at the Conference are to retain absolute freedom as to the recognition of the Bolshevist Government; and with regard to reparations, neither the means of payment nor the sum total shall be the subject of discussion at Genoa. If those interpretations of the Cannes Resolutions were really arrived at at Boulogne, I cannot think that the Government have dealt very candidly with the House. I do press very strongly on the House that to have an economic conference that is really to deal with Europe, and exclude from its jurisdiction all discussion of reparations, is really a fatuous policy. It is
absurd to suppose that you will ever get Europe re-established until you get the reparations question really settled, and yet I may say this very frankly. You have got to abandon the theory of imposing your terms on Germany in this respect. It cannot be done. You have got to get back to the theory, which has always prevailed at the end of every other war, that you have got to get genuine agreement between victors and vanquished before you can hope that the terms will be effectually carried out. You have got to get the terms of the reparation difficulty settled before you can hope for a revival in Europe. It is really a vital point, and I am amazed that any Government should think it worth while to go into an elaborate economic conference so long as that question is outstanding.
It is not necessary for me to elaborate to the House the economic importance of the Reparations scheme. I cannot in the least agree with my right hon. Friend who has just spoken that the Versailles Conference could have done no other than they did in reference to the indemnity. I do not at all agree with him that it was impossible to arrive at a figure which should represent reasonably what Germany could pay. That is the question, I agree—what Germany can pay. Not what she ought to pay. Anything else is an impossible solution. We cannot estimate in money the evil of the injury that has been done by the late War. The question is what Germany can pay. I do not believe it was impossible to arrive at a reasonable solution when the question was before the Versailles Conference. On the contrary, everyone knows that there were men of the highest financial skill there. There was nothing in the least to prevent these financial experts getting together and making an estimate of what Germany could pay. I believe it could have been done then, and if it had been done it would have saved us from a large part of the disorganisation which you have now.
We are starting again at an economic conference on the economic reconstruction of Europe and to settle these outstanding questions. It is madness until you agree upon the major question. You will never get any further: you must settle it. I do not agree with the right hon. Gentlemen or the Prime Minister, for I do not think it is impossible to arrive at a I settlement which would be accepted by
our French Allies, would be a satisfactory settlement of what is possible, and would be accepted by Germany. The error, in my view, is that we have never said plainly what we mean. If we had said plainly and exactly what we meant and pressed that view on France—I am satisfied if we had put our view reasonably forward that our view would sooner or later have been accepted by the French. But it is no use trying to control them one day, to bluff them the next, and to tell them you are going to give them everything to which they are entitled under the Treaty of Versailles, and then to try to whittle away their hopes. That will never get you any further. If you want to settle anything under this Resolution you will have to deal with the subject with the utmost candour and frankness, and I believe if you made a reasonable proposal it would be possible to arrive at a settlement. I am quite sure without a settlement of the reparations question it is perfectly useless to talk about other methods of the re-construction of Europe.
My feeling, therefore, about this, when I am asked to approve of the Genoa Conference on the basis of the Cannes Conference and when I learn that the question of disarmament, of the revision of treaties, reparations, and Allied debts, and so on, are all to be excluded from that Conference—to say that it should be accepted as a basis for economic reconstruction is fatuous. The Prime Minister in his peroration quoted the by-elections and used them not only against the section of his own supporters, but against the French Government. He suggested that if this Government went out a worse Government might come into power. I do not think it. I do not believe—this may sound an exaggerated statement—I do not believe there has ever been a Government which has so mismanaged foreign affairs. I believe it is the very worst Government that has ever dealt with foreign affairs in this country. No Government that succeeded it could do worse than the present. Our position is not an enviable one. There is scarcely a country in Europe, there is scarcely a Government that has not its doubts about our own Government. What did I read the other day about the French Delegation? That this gentleman going to Genoa is supposed to be the right man to go there because
he will be able effectively to watch the Prime Minister! What a reputation for us to have. What a position we might have had if we had acted differently in Paris in 1919.
We had the greatest opportunity that was ever given a country in the world to set Europe on its feet, to do a great act of healing. All we had to do was merely to deal frankly with this matter and not to attempt clever and ingenious and dramatic things—to state with perfect candour what it was we wanted to do, and to insist, not upon scratching here and there for what we supposed was to the advantage of the Empire, but to say boldly that what we really were after was the re-establishment of Europe on a peace basis. The American and this Government could have imposed any settlement they liked upon Europe, and in this matter we were at Versailles responsible, perhaps chiefly responsible, for these miserable, fantastic terms set out in the paper. Instead of standing before the world, as we might have done now, as the great pacificators of the world, we may look back to this Treaty as the worst international document that ever disgraced the diplomatic history of the world.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I take part in this Debate, not to reply to the speech to which we have just listened, but in view of the fact that I ventured to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) in the course of his speech as to a statement which he had made about our not having an honourable obligation to support those Russians with whom we had acted during the War, and later to carry on their operations in Russia. My right hon. Friend challenged me to repudiate my interruption, and I have, therefore, armed myself with the quotation which, with your permission, Sir, I will read to the House. It is the quotation which I had in my mind. I did not interrupt without some grounds, for I heard my right hon. Friend make the speech. This is what he said on 17th November, 1919:
Whatever it may be, there were two or three lines of policy open to this country. There was the policy of complete neutrality at the beginning. I do not think that was possible. I frankly admit that, because we were involved in Russia; we had commitments North and South of Russia, and I quite agree you could not suddenly pull up.
You had to discharge the first duty of withdrawing your men and what you could of your stores, and I say, there was an honourable duty on this country to do what we could, within reasonable bounds at any rate, to give an opportunity to those Russians who had been fighting alongside us to get to some zone of comparative safety. I only put it that way. I quite agree that a policy of neutrality at the start was not a possible policy. There is also another duty which, I think, we have very carefully to bear in mind. Certain new border States were in process of formation. It was not possible for us, I think, totally to disregard that. So at the beginning there were certain obligations of honour we had to discharge."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 17th November, 1919; col. 683, Vol. 121.]
That is the "quotation which I had in mind. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about it?"] Well, those are the obligations. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] What is the use of hon. Members saying "No," because those are the obligations to which the right hon. Gentleman was referring. My right hon. Friend made a very impressive and fair and candid admission, and I am sorry that he should be ambarrassed when it is quoted to him in after years. It is very easy when all the troubles are over and when these difficulties have ceased to come and make a general condemnation of the policy of the Government. I take my stand on the fact that at the outset we had honourable obligations to discharge.

Mr. JAMES WILSON: Not of aggression.

Mr. CHURCHILL: You may say that we waited too long, or that we went too far, but on the essential point that we had honourable obligations to discharge, I claim the right hon. Gentleman as a witness.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. HOARE: My right hon. Friend opposite said he could not understand why this Reeolution had been put down or what useful purpose it would serve. It seems to me that it has at least served one useful purpose, for it has brought back the right hon. Member for Central Glasgow (Mr. Bonar Law) and we have had the pleasure of hearing from him one of these excellent speeches that we hear so seldom nowadays. I wish my right hon. Friend would come back more regularly to our Debates, and more frequently give us the opportunity of the practical advise that he gave, us this afternoon. It seems to me that there has been a good deal of unreality about some
of the speeches this afternoon. We have had speeches from two representatives of the two Oppositions and they are two parties you would have thought would have been in favour of a general Conference and they are going to be the only two parties to vote against the Government Resolution this evening. Even the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil) seemed to me to fall into that very illogical field of argument. I listened to my Noble Friend and I understood that he was opposed to the Government Resolution but that he was not opposed to the idea of the Genoa Conference.

Lord R. CECIL: I am opposed to the Resolution, which asks us to take the Cannes Resolution as the basis for the Conference.

Sir S. HOARE: That is the only basis' on which the Genoa Conference can be held. What is the use of saying reparations ought to have been included, because everybody knows that if they had been included the French would not have-gone to Genoa at all. What is the use of saying that the immediate recognition of the Bolshevists ought to have been included? If that had been so, scarcely a single Government would have gone to the Genoa Conference, and it could not have been held at all. I can understand the attitude of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Burton (Colonel' Gretton), because he says that he is; opposed to all conference and all dealings; with the Bolshevists. That is a perfectly clear and logical attitude, but to come here and say that we want the Genoa Conference and at the same time oppose the only conditions on which it can be. held seems to me to make no useful contribution whatever to the Debates we are-having this afternoon. So much for the speeches we have heard from the leaders, of the two parties opposite.
Let me say a word about the Government attitude. If the Opposition parties, have under-estimated the effects that are to come from the Genoa Conference it: seems to me that the Government, and a particular section of the Government, Press, have greatly over-rated those effects. We have heard in the last three weeks a repetition of what we have had' too often during the last three years—inspired paragraphs in all the organs of the Government Press saying that a great Conference is going to be held
and that the work of the delegates is going to change the whole history of the world. We have heard too much of that sort of thing during the last two or three years. We have heard too often that, after some dramatic action of this kind, we were going to live happily afterwards like princesses and princes in palaces. Does the representative of the Government on the Treasury Bench agree that such results are going to follow? I think these exaggerations are bound to excite all kinds of suspicions in the minds of many Conservatives.
We have heard during the last three weeks that this Debate was going to be the turning point in the career of the Government, that it was going to be the opportunity of dividing the sheep from the goats, and that it was to be the beginning of a new Government programme. What wonder, when we read articles that appear to be inspired in organs that are in very close touch with Downing Street, that the rank and file of the Conservative party became very suspicious, not only as to what is going to happen in politics at home, but suspicious as to what is going to happen in our foreign policy abroad. I have noticed many veiled attacks during the last two or three weeks in those same organs upon French policy. I am as fully aware as any hon. Member of this House of the great difficulties that do exist in reconciling British and French policy, but it does seem to me to be altogether regrettable to see these veiled attacks on the very eve of a great Allied Conference in which united Allied action is the first essential, more particularly so at the very moment when we have established the unity of the Anglo-French front in dealing with Turkey. Surely it is ground for very genuine suspicion among those of us who believe that the Anglo-French Alliance is the basis of our continental policy to see these veiled attacks on the French Government and the French policy on the very eve of the Genoa Conference. This kind of Press argument, I assure my right hon. Friend, is responsible for most of the suspicions which have been felt by the Conservative party during the last three weeks. It is doing the Conference a very real disservice to write of it in this strain. It is doing the Conference a very real disservice to exaggerate what it is doing to do. It is doing it a very real dis-
service to use it as an opportunity to drive in a wedge between various sections of the Government supporters in this country.
Genoa may be very useful. It is in practice a very important international Conference, more important than the Conferences at Spa and Boulogne, because both Germany and Russia will be present. It is less important than the Conference at Washington, because the United States of America will be absent. My own view is that the Conference can do very valuable work—work of a strictly limited character—and it is on that account that I am prepared to support the Government Resolution. Let me suggest to the House, in a very sentences, the kind of use that, in my view, the Genoa Conference can be. Hitherto we have been declaiming against each other in our dealings with Russia. We have been throwing anathemas at each other's heads. We have been dealing in generalities. Let us pass from those generalities to the hard concrete facts of the case. It is no small progress to have the practical questions proposed and stated first of all by experts, and secondly by the delegates at Genoa. Here are some of the concrete conditions with which the experts have been struggling, and for which I hope they will try to find a solution at Genoa.
First, how can we trade successfully with a Communist Government? It is difficult enough to trade with any Government, let alone a Communist Government. The Prime Minister to-day, in the long quotation he gave from a speech by Lenin, implied that the Bolshevist Government had already abandoned their Communistic theories. I do not think that is so. One does not see much evidence of it in actual practice. Moreover, there is a great difficulty in dealing with Russia and it is this. You are dealing not with one single organisation but you are really dealing with three separate Governments. You are dealing with the Soviet; you are dealing with the Chaika Extraordinary Commission, and you are also dealing with the organisers of the Third Internationale. It may be that some individual Bolshevist leader has abandoned his Communistic theories, but none the less the two Governments in which he may not be as powerful as he is in the third may hold no such views and you may have the more powerful elements in Bolshevism still holding to the theories which Lenin himself has abandoned.
Moreover, if all these three organisations are ready to trade with you, how can you ensure proper safeguards for our own nationals when the Bolshevists refuse to recognise private property and international law? British traders will inevitably demand special safeguards, be they special rights, or special capitulations, or special courts. If the Bolshevists refuse them trade will be impossible on a large scale. If, on the other hand, they, admit them, they will be making one law for the foreigner and another for Russians, and Russia will be in the position of Turkey, or China, or Egypt. If you get over these difficulties, how can Russia foster foreign trade if their workmen are not working and their population are dying of famine? Russia wants bread, and machines and skilled workmen to run the machines. How is she going to pay for them? The Bolshevist Government has destroyed every industry excepting the printing of rouble notes. It has taken away every incentive to the peasant and the workman to work. No foreign credit is going to put this state of affairs right as long as Bolshevist principles are still practised.
Lastly, if Russia admits her international obligations, how are her debts to be paid? She owes Great Britain and France £1,000,000,000. Even if she recognises this debt, in what form and by what method is payment to be made 1 We have been talking for three years about the methods of getting payment made by Germany. Are we likely to be more successful in providing methods for the payment of this great Russian debt—methods which will not do more harm than good? These I suggest are the kind of practical problems which the experts have been considering and which our representatives will discuss at Genoa. I wish them to be discussed, for it is only by hard facts that the rival issues between Capitalism and Communism can be settled. It is because I want them discussed that I am ready to support the Government to-day. Let our representatives go to Genoa and face the facts and problems. Let them meet the Bolshevist representatives, and see what they have to say in reply to the concrete difficulties which I have just been urging. One of two results will, in my view, follow. On the one hand, the Communist theories may collapse in contact with the Western world. Brought out of the darkness
and isolation of Moscow, they may well dissolve. If that be the result of Genoa, so much the better for the world. If, on the other hand, the Communist doctrinaires stick to their theories, it will be made clear to everyone that it is impossible to resume normal relations with a Government which regards you as an enemy to be destroyed, and that it is impossible to recognise a Government which refuses to recognise the principles upon which our society is based. If Genoa does no more than this it will not have been in vain, for it will have proved to the world what we have been saying for the last three years—that Bolshevism is Asiatic barbarism that destroys everything that it touches.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I cannot help thinking that to hold a Conference at Genoa, with 100 expert representatives from this country, and an equal number from every other European country, is rather an expensive way of inaugurating a debate on Communism versus Capitalism, which appears to be all that the hon. Baronet expects to result from this Genoa Conference. From his opening remarks, however, the hon. Baronet, who misrepresents me politically, does not, I think, completely understand the position of the Prime Minister. He complained of the inspired Ministerial Press, and the inspired Ministerial Press has done its duty nobly during the last fortnight. Day after day it has told us that Genoa is to work the miracle; and it had to do so. Let the hon. Baronet put himself for one moment in the position of the Prime Minister. What would he do in his shoes? Would not he have to work the Press for Genoa? Just consider the Prime Minister's position. He has tried every dodge, every turn, in order to improve trade and reduce unemployment. He has tried export credits, he has tried doles, he has tried one thing and another, He has turned from conference to conference, in order to benefit British trade. Everything has failed, and turned to dust and ashes in his hands. At last, Genoa, appears over the horizon, and Genoa is to do the trick. And we have to be told all about it. That really is the meaning of the Debate at which we have been attending to-day. It is the last effort of the Prime Minister, and to me, and I think to a great many of us on these benches, the last effort of the Prime Minister has been almost like a funeral
ovation. Never since I have sat in this House has the Prime Minister aroused in my breast pity before. I cannot attack him. He is on the rocks. It is almost unkind to say what one thinks, either about his speech or about his policy.
I turn from the Prime Minister, with relief, to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Glasgow (Mr. Bonar Law), who has come back to us. It always used to be said of the Bourbons, when they returned in 1815, that they had learned nothing and forgotten nothing. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Glasgow has come back like a Prince of the Bourbons. He has come back after a year's absence, and he thinks that in this world of ours nothing is changed, that all is as it was a year ago. He forgets that trade has finally collapsed under the foreign policy of his old Government. He forgets that now prices and wages are down, under the guidance of his admirable Government. He forgets, finally, that there are 2,000,000 out of work in this country. And he turns upon my right hon. Friend the Member for Platting and says, in his best schoolmaster voice, that he does hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Platting will not use outside this House that very unpleasant argument that unemployment in this country is due to reparations. Why, every day, on every platform in every Labour meeting, we are saying it all about the country, and the result is seen at East Leicester? We are not only saying it, we are not only believing it ourselves, but the people are believing it, too. And that is why the Prime Minister is on the rocks to-day; Genoa is his last hope; because surely it is German reparations which are breaking British trade and creating British unemployment.
9.0 P.M.
What else is it? Speaker after speaker has pointed out that the real reason why the Genoa Conference cannot possibly save Europe or reduce unemployment in this country is that, under the Cannes Resolutions, the Genoa Conference may not discuss reparations; it may not discuss any variation in the Peace Treaty. Consequently it cannot do anything to restore trade or to reduce unemployment in this country. I wonder, in the absence of the Prime Minister, whether we could learn, possibly, from the right hon. Gentleman
the President of the Board of Trade, whether he or his Government are or are not in favour of the revision of the Versailles Treaty so far as the Financial Clauses are concerned? Could we have an answer to that, Yes or No? Do you want to revise the Versailles Treaty or not? There is no answer, and for a very sufficient reason. It is just on that point that the Coalition Government cannot give a united answer. Apparently the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Glasgow, the returned Bourbon, is still of the good old opinion, held universally in those quarters eighteen months ago, that the Versailles Treaty was perfection, that any revision of the Financial Clauses of that Treaty meant pro-Germanism. But many things have happened in the. last eighteen months, since the right hon. Gentleman vanished to the Riviera. The Prime Minister has been converted. The Prime Minister has discovered that his own reparations are hanging like the albatross round his neck, and that there is no possibility of getting what he wants, either at Genoa or Cannes or anywhere else, without a revision of that Treaty. This same Government Press, which has been so admirably booming Genoa during the last month or so, has been carrying on also a more or less—rather less than more—veiled attack upon the policy of the French Government on this very matter. They know quite well that the Prime Minister's object in going to Genoa is not merely to have a debate with Lenin as to the rival virtues of Communism or Capitalism, but by a roundabout method, in roundabout ways, persuading here one little country and there another to bring sufficient pressure to bear upon the French Government to convince them that they have got to agree to a revision of the Versaillee Treaty. The Prime Minister knows it, and I think most of the Ministers on the Government Bench who are concerned with finance or with trade know it; but, of course, the other elements in the Government are naturally still clinging to the old clicés of the 1918 election. For them, searching the pockets of Germany is still good sport.

Mr. MILLS: Making the pips squeak.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Making the pips squeak is an excellent week-end amusement, because they have no interest whatever in finance or industry in this I country. They are the amateurs of
politics, and the business men in politics know what this means. They know that the trade of this country is being smashed at present by the utter incapacity of our old customers to buy our goods. The Prime Minister to-day was perfectly clear and emphatic. He made it clear to the House that the first step towards a recovery of trade would have to be, not the restoration of the exchanges—that he agreed was impossible—but the stabilisation of the exchanges at their present position. He said Genoa was going to do it. How can Genoa do it? Genoa cannot stabilise the exchanges except, as the Prime Minister again indicated, by the different countries composing Europe balancing their Budgets and making their revenue meet their expenditure. What is the use of going to Germany or Austria or Hungary and telling them to balance their Budgets when at the same time you are holding over their heads an indefinite liability for reparations? It cannot be done. Let us agree with the Prime Minister that, if trade is to recover in Europe, the first necessity is to stabilise the exchanges. Let us agree with hint further that the only way of stabilising the exchanges; is to balance the Budgets.
Then we come to the very reasonable question of how are these countries to balance their Budgets. It is not only reparations but also that other necessary consideration which again has been left completely out of the Cannes resolution, the question of disarmament. Unless you have land disarmament on a scale similar to the naval disarmament which was carried at Washington, and unless you can put a stop to these indefinite claims for reparation, there is no earthly chance of any of these countries balancing their Budgets. As a matter of fact the Prime Minister made one trifling error. What has broken down at the present moment is not primarily international trade, though that has broken down, but the whole policy of His Majesty's Government for the last three years. They have tried everything, but all the time they have been going about with their hands bound behind them by their foolish speeches in the 1918 Election. That damns this Government and it is that primordial curse, one might almost say, of the 1918 Election which has kept war going in Europe for the last three years. It is not the old war of the bomb and the rifle, but the
new economic war, the war that prevents the exchanges balancing, that sets up the curse of frontier disputes, that involves raids on Vilna and raids on Fiume. That policy is the result of the Prime Minister, who was in a perfectly strong position, giving way to his passion for being popular at all costs, and we are now, after three years, witnessing the spectacle of the people of this country gradually coming to see what the Prime Minister really is and what he has involved us all in. We are in our Amendment asking the House to say that we have no confidence in a Prime Minister such as that getting anything from a Conference at Genoa or anywhere else which will foe of real satisfaction to the trade of the country and which will really help to solve the unemployment problem. Reparations and disarmament are ruled out from Genoa, and therefore alone Genoa must fail, primarily and for all time, and not only Genoa, but every other conference will fail when it is tied up with the Prime Minister's election pledges and emasculated in advance owing to the position he is in relative not only to the electors of this country, but relative also to the French Government and to our Allies.

Mr. SAMUEL SAMUEL: I do not want to say much about Russia, but I should like to point out that the present Government of Russia is not a Government of the people, and I am very surprised indeed to hear hon. Members opposite supporting a system of government which is so diametrically opposed to democratic principles. It is a Government of the most autocratic, despotic character. As far as the Genoa Conference is concerned, the Prime Minister has told us that he does not intend to do anything to commit this country to anything without the consent of the House of Commons, and under these circumstances it is useless to criticise the conditions which may be laid down for an arrangement. Last week I asked two questions in reference to the position in Russia. I asked the Prime Minister whether at the Genoa Conference he would stipulate that the moneys which had been taken by the present Russian Government from the banks, the railways and the commercial community should be returned to the private sources from which they had I been taken so as to enable those debtors
to liquidate their liabilities with their creditors in various parts of Europe, and, further, whether he would stipulate that all properties belonging to foreigners in Russia should be returned to the foreign companies and individuals. He said in his reply that he would refer to this question to-day. He has stated that he would endeavour to stipulate for the return of the property to its rightful owners, but he has not mentioned the other question, which is equally important, as there were very large sums of money owing to the commercial community for goods supplied and for money which has been advanced and for various reasons. It is essential that those interests, which are quite as great as the interests of property, should be respected.
I asked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs if he would inquire whether there are any judges in Russia, and by whom appointed, and whether there is any tribunal in existence in commercial cases, and whether, in the event of a British subject doing business with Russia, he could recover by process of law any debts owing to him. The answer I received was that, generally speaking, the Russian Constitution as at present framed offered no judicial protection, in the sense usually understood, of the rights of property of British subjects. If under the laws of Russia private individuals cannot trade and recover debts owing to them or debts due for services rendered, is it proper that the Government should enter into trade relations with a country where there is no security of any kind? The Prime Minister has assured us that he will not do so at the Genoa Conference.
On the subject of the Conference, I notice in the Resolutions the question of finance. Everyone is convinced that until a proper peace is obtained throughout the world business is almost impossible, but, on the question of finance, we have seen suggestions that an international bank is to be established for the purpose of financing the business of the world, with a capital of £20,000,000. I recollect the attempt of the Government three years ago. I then took a very prominent part in opposing the charter which was to be given to a great institution to be established by the Government in order to bring salvation to the whole commercial community. It was a com-
pany which was to receive a special charter and special terms from the British Government for the purpose of establishing a bank that was to aid the development and reconstruction of British commerce. The present President of the Board of Trade was then Financial Secretary to the Treasury. He will recollect that some of us worked very hard indeed, and after a great fight succeeded in getting some restriction put upon the ambitions of that institution. I pointed out that the trade of the world had been created by private enterprise, and that it was private enterprise which had created the trade of this country, a trade which before the War amounted in exports and imports to something like £1,000,000,000 a year. I contended that those people who had succeeded in creating the trade of Great Britain and of the world were capable of doing the business that there was to be done, and that there were all the facilities necessary for carrying on trade on a safe and proper basis. Notwithstanding that, this company was created, and it has had a very merry time. It has been established for three years. It raised a capital of £2,000,000 sterling, and I believe that, in doing the business which old-established firms did not care to do, it has lost £1,500,000. That showed what the business of the world can be brought to with Government control.
I agree with the hon. Member for Central Glasgow (Mr. Bonar Law) that there are all the facilities and every possible opportunity for doing business when business can be done on a safe and proper basis. People talk about reconstruction of the business of the world. I think the word "reconstruction" was invented in this instance to hide the ignorance of the politicians. They did not know what to say, and so they adopted the word "reconstruction," because they thought it would deceive someone that there was a great deal to be done. As a matter of fact the attempt to finance the world is one of the greatest mistakes that the Government can possibly make. Already this country is in a very serious condition, financially, from over-taxation. I do not know, of course, what may be the intention of the Prime Minister in reference to financial matters at Genoa, but I beg him not to commit this country to the finding of the means for any other
country, as we have as much as we can possibly do to finance our own country and our own business. I do not think we would be justified in any way in undertaking any of the obligations which I know other countries would like to put upon our shoulders. Of all the countries that are to be represented at the Genoa Conference, Great Britain alone is in a position to do anything financially to relieve the burden of any other country, but we have as much as we can do to finance and relieve our own liabilities.
I think it was the right hon. Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) who mentioned the experts who went to the Brussels Financial Conference. We know that we were represented there, as were other countries, but as far as I know the only thing done there after a great deal of time was to recommend the Ter Meulen system of finance, which resolves itself into advancing money against the security of the smaller states of Europe. The British Government would be asked to finance shipments of goods from this country, and to pay or guarantee the merchants in this country for the repayment, and the buyers would put up the security in Ter Meulen bonds which were provided by the Governments. Some of these Governments, as everyone knows, are absolutely insolvent, and unable to pay their liabilities. So that we shall have to run the whole of the risk of these bonds, and we shall find in many cases that our money will be utilised probably to buy goods in Germany or America, and will not be available to us because we are holding these five years' bonds. I hope that the Government will not commit this country to any scheme which involves our taxpayers in guaranteeing, in any shape or form, the commitments of other countries. We are in a position, and I speak from experience, without, Government assistance to do any legitimate trade that may come along, and to finance it for ourselves, and we do not want to exhaust our resources in other countries. One thing I would like to point out to the House is that the chief cause of the great trade depression is the impoverishment of the world. We in this country have spent all over the world vast sums of money, and the various communities are not in a position to purchase at the high prices which obtain for all classes of goods. If we want to resume trade we shall have to
wait for a time and accumulate wealth, and we shall have to produce goods at lower prices to meet the requirements of people who wish to purchase them.

Sir W. BARTON: With a great deal of what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. S. Samuel) I find myself in very complete agreement. I think he has expressed a good deal of very sound doctrine. But the real reason why I wish to intervene is that, having listened to it throughout nearly the whole of to-day, I have felt this to be the most unreal Debate at which I have been present in all the years I have been a Member of this House. The Prime Minister is not only a very able politician, he is, I believe, a man of noble impulses, of generous instincts, but he is also a well-known political strategist, and it struck me this afternoon that he made a speech commensurate with the occasion. Right through his speech I seemed to be able to trace a trend of unreality. We were brought face to face with a Resolution for this Genoa Conference, and throughout the House as a whole it seems to me that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who rather adhere to the old way of diplomacy and who do not believe in conferences, are the men who to-night are going to support this Motion for a conference, and we here, who rather believe in more modern methods, who believe in conferences, who believe that in a time of difficulty the best thing you can do is to face across the table the men who are opposed to you and to argue the thing out—we are going to vote against this proposal. How does that, arise? I am convinced that this Motion has no real relation to the situation which has called it forth. According to the Prime Minister, everything was all right in the Cabinet and everything was all right in the Government. This, he said, was the Resolution which he had suggested a fortnight ago and everything was pursuing its usual course. But, I ask the House, is it? Alongside of him sat the Colonial Secretary, whose face was a picture of misery. I regard the Colonial Secretary as probably in many respects the cleverest party politician to-day, but there is one thing in which he is singularly unfortunate. He has a face which always tends to indicate what is passing in his mind. He has not that inscrutable countenance which is so useful to a politician. There he sat to-day the picture of grim misery and
despair, and I could not help thinking it had an effect on the Prime Minister in his speech.
If this Conference be necessary to-day, it was equally necessary in February, and at that time there is not a shadow of doubt that it was intended by the Prime Minister and those associated with him to have a General Election. Why now this call for a Conference? I feel sure that when the Prime Minister demanded from his allies and associates in the Government a Vote of Confidence, and when they found themselves unwilling or unable to provide him with that vote, it was then decided to ask for this extremely limited vote on a limited Genoa Conference. That being so, I think the position is one full of unreality. But, looking at the purposes of the Conference, it is limited in this sense, that it must not touch existing Treaties. I cannot but think that any conference which is precluded from touching existing Treaties is a conference foredoomed to failure, because at the root of the economic difficulties of Europe to-day lies the Versailles Treaty. I wish to safeguard myself by saying that I am one of those who believed at the last General Election, and who believes now, that the Allies had a right to obtain both an indemnity and reparations from Germany, but I believe our terrible failure was that we made claims which it was impossibly to fulfil, and by making' those claims we lost that which it might have been possible to obtain.
I have been recently reading a book by M. Tardieu, who was the right-hand man to M. Clemenceau at the Conference. That book is called "The Truth about the Treaty," and it has a foreword by Senator House and also by M. Clemenceau guaranteeing the value of the book. The writer tells us that the Prime Minister repeatedly went from this country with a determination to modify the insensate and impossible demands of M. Clemenceau. I believe he went sincerely with that intention, but there came a period when he was confronted with his great and fierce French opponent and with his determination that at all costs he would have those immoderate demands placed in the Treaty. It is repeatedly stated that Clemenceau met our Prime Minister with the statement, "At your
elections you promised the people that you would obtain the most extreme demands from Germany." So that this Treaty, which should have been the outcome of the closest calculation by men capable of calculating and men actually present at the Conference, became a political demand reinforced by political promises which should never have been made. The effect of these impossible demands lies at the root of the depreciation of Continental exchanges. A country which has hanging over its head an uncertain, unascertained demand can have no stability in its exchange. The Prime Minister to-day referred to the stabilisation of exchanges as one of the objects of the Genoa Conference. That is a phrase of which I have heard a great deal during the last few years, and I say unreservedly that you might as well make a promise to stabilise the weather. Exchange is not a cause, it is an effect, and until you remove the underlying causes you will not influence the effect, and if the intention in going to Genoa is that we shall stabilise the exchanges of Europe, while at the same time ruling out the underlying causes affecting the exchanges, then the whole idea is doomed to failure.
There is another point. While agreeing about conferences, I do deplore this most extravagant form of conference. We are to have at this Conference something like 80 or 100 persons. Altogether, some 2,000 people are to be present. The most elaborate arrangements are being made for motor cars, special trains, the finest hotels, and the finest villas. All this is totally out of keeping with the economic condition of Europe to-day. If this thing is having any effect at all it is the creating of exaggerated hopes by producing the opinion that, by 2,000 people meeting together, it is possible to settle the economic affairs of Europe. I am convinced that it is not possible. I believe that in the main we in this matter are seeking to escape from something from which we cannot escape. The whole thing has arisen from the fact, as has been said by my hon. Friend opposite, that we have wasted our substance in war, and that the real cure for that is economy, sound government, and sound finance, and the only conference which would be of any real use is a conference which would bring to the people of Europe a sense of the realities of our economic life.

Sir A. SHIRLEY BENN: I desire to say a few words from a business, not from a political, point of view on the Motion before the House. The life of our nation, as we all know, is dependent upon industry and overseas trade. My right hon. Friend the Member for Central Glasgow (Mr. Bonar Law) suggested that the bulk of our trade is home trade, and that it might be increased even if the foreign trade is decreased. Unless we can have our foreign trade, and manufacture goods and send them abroad to markets in which we can sell them, it would be a very bad day for England. We need the proceeds of those exports to pay for the raw material and the food which we must import, but at the present time the markets are not dependent so much on the stabilisation of exchanges or on political action as on the lack of confidence which exists throughout Europe. Once we can get that confidence restored we can get trade restored. Until it is restored I can see very little hope. The Prime Minister, speaking of the condition of the world, said that the only way in which it could be settled was either by conference or by force, and as force is, I hope, entirely out of the question, it must be by conference. Our Prime Minister is not the first Prime Minister who has believed in conference. He referred this afternoon to Pitt and he told us some of the things which Pitt said. I would like to read two or three lines of what Pitt said four years after the French Revolution, when Europe was unsettled, and when he stated in the House of Commons the Resolution which he thought would meet the object in view, namely, peace:
Resolved that it is the opinion of this House that whenever a proper opportunity occurs the most eligible way of establishing the tranquillity of Europe on a secure foundation would be by assembling a general congress such as took place in the last century previous to the peace of Münster. That the object of the Congress ought to be to specify and declare to all mankind the principles of right and wrong which ought to govern the relations between independent States; to specify and declare to all mankind the principles of security, property and public credit which it is necessary to recognise and render effective before any settlement can be negotiated with stability and honour.
That was said by Mr. Pitt in the House of Commons, and at that time the people with whom he was trying to negotiate consisted, among others, of the French Directory. The French Directory was,
as we know, prior to the days when Napoleon Bonaparte took a hand in ruling France, and it was described in this Parliament when he said:
The power now established in France is notoriously the very same in character, maxims, and conduct, as well as for the most part exercised or supported by the same men with the Government, which existed at or soon after the Revolution.
That was the position that was held in olden days. We did not go into conference and get the peace we ought to have. The result was that awful war which lasted years. To-day our Prime Minister has got the sense to see that the only way to get peace established in Europe is to get the nations to come and sit round a table and see what can be done, see where the difficulties are, and how peace can be agreed upon, and get down to business which will be the salvation of civilisation. I am delighted that there is going to be this Conference at Genoa. I should very much like to see it more unfettered. I very much agree with the first part of the Amendment, though I disagree absolutely with the second. What business men would ever send members to represent them at a conference unless they gave them their whole-hearted support? We know that this Conference is going to be held, and we are jeopardising the interests of our country in not telling those who are going to represent us at that Conference that they have behind them at that Conference the good wishes of the men in Parliament, who were sent to Parliament by the biggest number of electors who ever sent men to any Parliament in this country. I hope that when this matter goes to a vote the House of Commons as a whole will say: "We believe in the Conference. Whether we believe in the Government as an everyday Government or not, those who are going to represent us go as our representatives, and they have behind them the British Parliament as a whole."

Lord EUSTACE PERCY: I agree with my hon. Friend that if you are sending representatives to a Conference it is no good tying their hands in advance. It is no good trying to express want of confidence in them, but if some friends of mine and myself have put down an Amendment on the Paper, it is with this object—that it is essential that those who feel that they hold an opinion on certain
problems of foreign policy should express clearly their views, because it happens as often as not, that your representatives at a Conference are not sorry to have their hands strengthened by the expression of certain views—views even with which they are unable to identify themselves at the moment. That is the object of the Amendment put down on the Paper, and I do not think I need say very much in support of the second part of that Amendment, which refers to the limitation imposed on the scope of the Genoa Conference. That ground has been covered by many hon. Members in the course of this Debate. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) treated us to a speech with which we are so often accustomed. He spoke over and over again of treaty revision—the revision of the Versailles Treaty, the revision of treaties of peace. What did he mean? He also mentioned reparations. We have heard this talk about revision and revision and revision, and not one hon. Member, or the right hon. Gentlemen who have used the word know what they mean. [An HON. MEMBER: "Do you know what you mean?"] I know perfectly well there are certain points other than reparations which I think require some slight revision, but I think they are all of very secondary importance, and I should be glad to believe that any hon. Gentleman opposite knew which they were.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: If this were a Debate on the revision of the Treaties, we could deal perfectly well with all those points.

Lord E. PERCY: I think that when a leader of a party talks over and over again of revision generally, he should have some slight idea of what he means on the subject. I wish, if I may, to say a word on reparations, for this reason—I do not wish the Prime Minister or any of our representatives at the Genoa Conference to be able to say or to feel that they were restrained from agreeing or pressing for a certain policy on reparations by the attitude of any Conservative in this House. I feel sure that I am speaking for every Conservative in the House when I say that we regard reparations from a purely business point of view. Whatever may have been the true interpretation of President Wilson's Fourteen Points—which were the basis of the Armistice on
this subject—this is clear, that reparations was not to be a punitive fine, but a decree of restitution. As such it is a purely business proposition how much it will pay the Allies to exact. The true test of that is not, of course, how much evil Germany has committed, nor is the true test the opinion of the Prime Minister or of M. Poincaré. The test is surely this, and only this—the test of how large a loan could be floated in the markets of the world for Germany to fund her reparations obligations. That is an ascertainable quantity, and that is the total amount of reparations, which it will pay any of the Allies to exact.
I wish to say something which has not been touched upon in the Debate to-night, and that is to call the attention of the House to the diplomatic record of the Government in relation to the Genoa Conference. First of all, in regard to Germany, we must remember that there has been no communication between His Majesty's Government and Germany with regard to the programme of the Genoa Conference in any respect. This country has no diplomatic relations with Germany on any subject of importance. The whole of the vital relations between this country and Germany are in the hands of the Reparations Commission, which, again, conducts no continuous negotiations with Germany, but issues ultimata and lectures to Germany occasionally.
And now, as regards Russia. I wish—if so young a member as myself may say so without presumption—that the Debate on the subject of Russia had been less unreal. I cannot understand the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Platting or the hon. and gallant Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton). The question of whether you are going to recognise the Russian Government formally and diplomatically has nothing whatever to do with the question of whether you can trade with Russia. It has nothing to do with the making of peace with Russia. Hon. Members must surely realise that the last time we had a war with Russia, the Crimean War, we made peace with Russia at the Congress of Paris in 1856, but the commercial treaty on which alone the rights of British traders or British Consuls in Russia rested before the revolution was only concluded in 1859.
The question of making peace with Russia has no relation with the terms on which you can trade. It is not a question whether you are going to give some particular diplomatic recognition which will strengthen the hand of the Government in Russia, but whether you are going to establish any continuous diplomatic relations with Russia by Chargé d' Affaires or in any other way. It is perfectly obvious if you are going to continue on the basis of the commercial treaty on which all your rights rest since 1859, if you are going to do that by a process of continuous negotiation, you will have to have your representative there, and you have them already there. You have the trade delegation in Russia and you have M. Krassin in London. Has a word passed between His Majesty's Government and the Soviet Government at Moscow with regard to the Genoa Conference? Not a word. We have it publicly confessed on the Floor of the House that the only information His Majesty's Government has as to the disposition of the Russian Government in regard to the Genoa Conference has been gleaned from the Press, and that there has been no occasion for any communication between His Majesty's Government and the Russian Government. The Prime Minister, to my astonished ears, said you must have continuity. You must, indeed! If this be continuity, if this method of conducting the foreign relations of the country be continuity, then I am afraid the English language no longer has any meaning, for me at any rate.
10.0 P.M.
But the last item in the Government's diplomatic record is easily the best. When the Washington Conference was at a critical stage, when the relations between President Harding and the Senate were at almost their most difficult point, when the fate of the whole Conference and the Pacific Treaty was trembling in the balance, and the United States Administration was exposed to the full blast of all that criticism in America which comes from a section of opinion afraid of entangling commitments—suddenly out of a clear sky the Supreme Council at Cannes, without warning, passes a Resolution inviting the United States to the Genoa Conference. The Resolution was published the next morning before the American representative on the Supreme Council had time to telegraph to the Government. Not I
one single word was said in advance to the British Ambassador at Washington or to the Lord President of the Council, who was representing this country at the Conference. No attempt was made to sound the United States as to the attitude they would take. Just the one moment was chosen for this invitation which anybody with the slightest acquaintance with American policy could have told the Government was the moment most certain to elicit a complete and emphatic refusal from the United States Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Come over here!"] No, I am afraid I cannot until some of my hon. Friends on the opposite benches can speak with some slight sincerity on these questions of foreign policy. We have heard a good deal about diplomacy by conference, but diplomacy by conference, valuable as it is, as summing up a long course of previous negotiation, is futile if it is simply, to use the words in the play, "As You Like It"—
an invocation to call fools into a circle.
If it bears no relation to previous negotiation, if it sums up no previous negotiation, then such diplomacy must inevitably fail. The criticism against the Government is that they have scrapped the whole of the machinery of their foreign relations, they have killed our Foreign Office, stifled negotiation, scorned the ordinary courtesies of international intercourse. What is the good of their preparing a retinue for a pompous expedition to the unknown and coming to put to the accommodating prophets of their majority in this House the question,
Shall we go to Ramoth-Gilead to battle, or shall we forbear?
Far be it from me to repeat the answer given of old to that question, although I could say that of the forces on which Governments normally rely for the conduct of their foreign policy are
scattered upon the mountains, as sheep that have no shepherd.
but I do not want to use ribald language. At least I can make an appeal to the Government. We believe in their intentions in this matter. We are prepared to support them in any effort they may make for the reconstruction of Europe. But how often must they I present to us the spectacle of policies
defaced by blunders in execution? So long as they do so they cannot blame some of their supporters if in listening to a Debate such as this, they draw only one moral from it, the moral "Wanted, an administrator."

Mr. S. WALSH: One listens to the Noble Lord who has just sat down with increasing interest on each occasion he addresses the House. He made a reference to "As you like it," and I think we might say, from this bench, in compliment to him, although he is rather fond of diatribes against our party—
O wise and upright judge!
How much more elder art thou than thy looks!
After this interchange of Shakespearean courtesies, we may proceed to business. I think I am right in saying that never in the history of this House, at least during the last 16 or 17 years, has a Motion such as that of the Government been tabled. We are asked to express our confidence in the Government in its action in attending the Genoa Conference, and in taking with them certain well known Ministers, and the Prime Minister appeals to the Labour party not to lessen the value of the Conference because the Labour party itself exists upon conferences. The Labour party does not exist upon con ferences of the character of those of the last three years. If the Labour party had existed upon conferences so utterly futile as have been the half-score or more that have taken place since 1919, the Labour party would not at present be the second party numerically in this House. What is the House invited to do? It is invited to record its confidence in a method of conferences by a particular Government that has during the last three years taken part in at least half a score of conferences, every one of which at its termination was said to be the most successful that had been held, every one of which had reached complete agreement, every one of which had broken up under the most happy auspices, and every one of which had in effect rehabilitated Europe. Our representatives came away in perfect cordiality with the representatives of other nations, every outstanding point had been made clear, and there was now real hope, on each occasion. No matter how dire had been the prospect before, now, indeed, all those
things were removed, and Europe was on the high road to recovery. I think that cannot be said in any sense to be an exaggeration of the reports brought back continually to this House by the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who had attended the conferences, and yet, after all these conferences have been held, after all these fine promises have been given to us, after all these happy hopes have been held out, we are told to-day that the prospect is blacker and more depressing than ever before.
Indeed, we know this. If we were not so informed by the Prime Minister himself, we do know that the German mark stands to-day at somewhere about 1,200 to the £. [An HON. MEMBER: "1,400!"] Well, I do not wish to exaggerate. We will say 1,200 or 1,300 to the £; about six a penny, I think they are. At the time when the conferences started, I think 240 marks ruled to the £, but today they are nearer 1,440 to the £. The Prime Minister is not in the habit of making pessimistic statements—his temperament is rather more hopeful than otherwise—but he speaks of huge armies massing on the frontiers, of a devastated Europe, of exchanges being destroyed, and of credit having disappeared, and under these circumstances we are asked to add one more to the already lengthened chain of conferences. For myself—and I think I speak for the party behind me—I say that we agree with the Prime Minister in saying that the state of Europe is worse now than it was before the conferences began. The essential facts of the situation were known in 1919. The Prime Minister to-day devoted at least two-thirds of his speech to that which, in the words of Macaulay, every schoolboy might have known. Indeed, every schoolboy does know. The essential facts, as he stated them to this House, are known to every Member of this House and to millions outside, and he need not have wasted such a long time in giving us such a description of the condition of Europe.
It was surely known how large and integral a part of the economic life of Central Europe Germany occupied, and how dependent the neighbouring countries were upon the industrial and economic life of Germany, and if conditions were imposed upon Germany which deprived her of the reasonable possibility of
economic recovery, that all Europe must suffer in consequence. Everybody knows the geographical situation of Germany in Europe. Everybody knows the great economic power she exerted. Everybody knows the state of relative dependence upon Germany's economy of all the other nations surrounding Germany. That has been a commonplace of European politics for the last 200 years, and surely everybody must have known that if, by the terms of the Versailles Treaty, you placed upon her conditions that were impossible of execution you placed the recovery of Europe beyond all reasonable hope. That must have been known, and we say now that because we did know that, and because the Government never had the courage to face that central and dominating fact, we find ourselves in the position that we occupy to-day. If you destroy the real chance of recovery of a great nation in Central Europe, upon which all the others depend for their economic life, you are really destroying in effect the whole of the economic recovery of Europe itself. That surely was known, and I say now—and there is not a man in this House who can deny it—that the conditions imposed by the Versailles Treaty were such that no nation within any reasonable time could hope, if it carried out the conditions of that Treaty, for economic recovery; and if it be impossible for Germany to recover economically, it is impossible also for the neighbouring States of Germany, that constitute a great part of the whole European comity of peoples, to regain their economic life. That is the real reason for the widespread depression in which Europe and in which Great Britain find themselves to-day. Terms were imposed at Versailles not only depriving Germany of the hope of recovery, and thereby condemning Central Europe to a long period of wretchedness, but terms impossible to carry out in any reasonable space of time. After all, time is, I suppose, the essence of treaties. Even the people of Great Britain cannot go on through an indefinitely long era of wretchedness and suffering such as they are passing through to-day and we thought the Government itself would recognise central facts such as these, that if you were placing terms upon a nation like Germany impossible of execution, you were condemning the whole people
of Europe, and ourselves, to an interminable period of wretchedness and depression.
The whole question of reparations, which is really the essential point in the Treaty of Versailles, is not to be discussed at the Genoa Conference. If the whole thing is ruled out, and is not in any sense to be discussed, then, of course, there is no special point in discussing it here; but we say that the Conference is emasculated in advance, if you cannot discuss the question of reparations, if you cannot discuss the question of treaties already entered into. If those treaties, which are really very imperfectly understood, even by Members in this House, but which do hold within their grasp the fate of millions of people, are to be ruled out as being impossible of discussion, I say the conditions of tour Conference are being rendered null and void in advance.
Take the question of land armaments. No Member of this House has been so consistently insistent upon the virtues of peace as has the Prime Minister. We all agree. We welcome his utterances. He has always been a great lover of peace, but can anybody say that there is to be any real hope of peace from a Conference such as this? All the previous Conferences have failed, and now we are told by the Prime Minister himself that huge armies are massing on the frontiers, prepared, I take it, to do desperate deeds. He was most depressing; he really made my flesh creep with his very vivid description of the condition of Europe. Huge armies are massing on the frontiers, and yet he talks of peace being established, and of nations balancing their Budgets. How can you balance your Budget; how can you have peace ensue if at such a Conference, in which nearly all the world is being gathered together, you are to rule out entirely these questions?
You are, as a matter of fact, condemning your Conference to futility in advance, and because we say it is an imposture, because no conference can have any useful end under such conditions, is the reason we have put down our Motion. Because of these successive Conferences having been failures, the Government come forward with their claim with very seriously diminished authority. They have already indulged in a number of Conferences, to which there seem to be no limit. Not one single
useful point has emerged. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about Washington?"] That was not their conference. It was summoned on the invitation of the United States of America. It cannot be put to the credit of England at all. In this case we are asked to grant to a Government, already discredited by a perfectly dismal list of failures, carte blanche to undertake another equally dismal failure, because the conditions condemn it to futility in advance. If this House itself could give the Vote of Confidence which the Government are asking; if it really did possess any genuine representative authority, it would be all very well to give a Vote of Confidence. A Vote of Confidence in the Government! But you cannot have a real Vote of Confidence unless it is based upon a truly representative House. Apart from the feeling outside, everybody knows that the House itself is violently torn with internal convulsions. You have "Die-bards" here and "Die-hards" there, and—[An HON. MEMBER: "Cave men!"]—yes, and cave men, et hoc genus omne. It is per fectly well known that on both foreign and domestic policy—upon every fundamental point of it—that the Government's presumed supporters are hopelessly split—their divisions and dissentions are known all over the world. Does anyone believe that on the Continent of Europe they will be deluded by the vote in the Division Lobbies to-night, or will fail to understand that, because we are outnumbered by three to one, that this Vote is not a representative one? They know perfectly well that the House itself is deprived of representative authority, and that the nation has deprived it of representative authority?
During the last six months there have been a series of by-elections, north, south, east, and west; in Scotland, England and Wales. [An HON. MEMBER: "Wolverhampton!"] On every single occasion the Government itself sent their very best henchmen down to engage in the conflict. They have put their strongest case forward. In Heywood, at West Houghton. [An HON. MEMBER: "Cambridge!"] Chertsey, Camberwell—by thousands and thousands in every place their majority has been reduced, and in every place condemnation has been expressed. Lastly, there is the case upon which they thought
they had the biggest reason to pride themselves. There was the constituency of the right hon. Gentleman who was the most distinguished legal Member of this House, one who played a distinguished part in our Debates, a man whom everybody held in the highest regard; he has gone from our midst and now adorns a higher sphere, and we all wish him well. The Government embarked upon the fight at Leicester, yet there, by thousands and thousands, the constituency has declared it no longer has confidence in the Government. At Cambridge, too, a supporter of the Government was returned, but thousands of votes were cast against the Government—greater than before. Chertsey, a Conservative place from time immemorial, registers thousands and thousands of votes against the Government. It is under these circumstances, when by their own internal divisions they have condemned themselves and stand condemned, that we are asked to give a Vote of Confidence to the Government, and we decline to take any part in this confidence trick.
This is not a Vote of Confidence, but a vote for the continuance of a long firm swindle. We are told by the Prime Minister how desirable it is to have peace in and with Russia. On these benches we say you ought never to have engaged in those wicked and reckless adventures in Russia, spending our money by millions on desperate enterprises for which there was not one atom of justification. The Prime Minister knew from the beginning how wicked arid utterly unjustifiable those enterprises were. The list of them is almost as long as the list of conferences they have held. We supported Yudenitch, Koltchak, Wrangel, Denikin and others, and north, south, east and west, on land and sea, we helped those particular enterprises against a people with whom we had no war, or cause of quarrel. We are now asked to make peace with Russia, but we have never declared war upon them. The Prime Minister may say that, after all, peace is really a recognition of the Soviet Government. We spent £100,000,000 without authority, because the money was never voted in this House, and a good many lives have been lost on those mad and disgraceful enterprises, and after all that we wonder why Soviet Russia distrusts the good faith of the British people. The long list of conferences
during the last three years has thrown the gravest possible discredit upon British good faith. Every Conference has been a miserable failure, and the Genoa Conference will fail. For these reasons we shall go into the Lobby against the Government.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN (Leader of the House): I was under the impression that if anyone's authority was to be challenged to-night, it was the authority of His Majesty's Ministers, but I find from the speech of the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. Walsh) that I have been labouring under a delusion. It is not His Majesty's Ministers who have ceased to possess the confidence of the country; it is the House of Commons. The Motion before the House, as interpreted by the hon. Gentleman on behalf of the party for which he speaks, is a Vote of Censure not upon Ministers, but upon the House. I do not propose in the short time at my disposal—[An HON. MEMBER: "You have half an hour!"] I do not propose, in the half hour I have, to devote myself either to the correction of the hon. Gentleman's history, or to inquire into the extent to which this House represents the country. There is a school of thought which denies the authority of this House, and which would substitute for it some form of external and direct action. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman and his Friends propose to send their own representatives to Genoa to explain that those who go with the authority of this House do not represent the people of this country. But those Members of the House who take a graver and more serious interest in foreign affairs may think, perhaps, that the task of the British Government and the influence of our country in the Councils of Europe is not greatly assisted by such a display of pure party politics as is to be found in such speeches as that to which we have just listened.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Central Glasgow (Mr. Bonar Law)—who contributed to our Debate a speech which leaves us torn between regret that he ever left us and a sense of the added authority and acceptance with which he speaks since he has ceased to be responsible—said that he did not know why this Motion had ever been moved. I confess that anybody
listening to this Debate might indeed wonder. Until we announced that we would take the opinion of the House on the Genoa Conference, that Conference was an unwanted Conference, against which every man's hand was raised. But when we challenged a decision upon it, everybody—well, nearly everybody, but not everybody—holds that the Conference is right, and that the summoning of the Conference is right. A considerable section hold that the people who represent this country are wrong, and say that the fact that they are going there—seeing that they are the sources of all evil in an afflicted world—condemns the Conference to failure. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] See how fairly I represent their views!
For my part, I take the middle view—the middle view expressed with characteristic moderation and ability by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare). I neither expect everything from this Conferences nor do I think it a useless proposal to make. It has, as he said, a perfectly defined and specific sphere of usefulness. We are not going to create a new world, if it succeeds. The utmost desire of those of us who care most about it is that it will have opportunities for usefulness, and that it may enable the world to take one more step forward. The condition of the world, and of our own country among others, is sufficiently serious, I should have thought, to enable us to ask with confidence for the support and good will of all patriotic men in the effort which we have undertaken. We have not received it.
Whatever else may be said about this Motion, it has, at any rate, led to an interesting Debate. It was, I think, one of the Scottish Judges of the old school who observed about that useful animal the pig that it provided a great deal of confused fine eating; and I think I may claim the same for our Motion. It has enabled the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) to explain to an interested and gratified House of Commons that he had always foreseen that the Russian experiment in self-government was doomed to failure; that Communism could never succeed in a country—and, he might have added, in a world—where everyone was not a Communist. [An HON. MEMBER: "You
ought to have known that years ago!"] I did know it, but it is the first time that I have heard it from the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. CLYNES: I wrote it, and said it.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is as old as the saying that Communism could not succeed until all men were angels, and when all men were angels it would not be necessary. Then this Motion enabled the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean)—who has all my sympathy, called upon as he was to take part in a Debate which requires some thought, at a moment's notice, owing to the indisposition of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith)—it enabled him to pose as the friend and admirer of the Die-hards, or those who are called the Die-hards, of the party to which I belong, and to make to them an impassioned appeal not to sacrifice their consciences to any base or mean consideration, not to think of votes or elections, but to stand firm by the faith which is in them. I am reminded of the story of the Spanish auto-da-fé, at which a Jew was condemned to be burned to death for heresy, and, when all Madrid was assembled in its great square to witness the burning, the horrible rumour spread that the victim was going to recant, and that the fire would never be lit; and a great cry arose from the crowd, "Stand firm, Moses!" And Moses stood firm, and there was such a burning as Madrid had never seen. I hope my hon. Friends will consider the character of that advice, and the quarter from which it comes, before they consent to sacrifice themselves on the altar which the right hon. Gentleman has built for them.
After all, we are considering something more than party differences at home, or an electoral situation. No truer word was spoken than by my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Glasgow, in a speech which was full of wisdom, when he said that no man not a born fool would have taken upon himself the task which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has assumed, in going to Genoa on behalf of the Government, with a view to electoral results. Cannot we in the British House of Commons put aside those considerations for a moment? Think of the condition of Europe. Think of the condition of the world. Think of the con-
dition of our own people. Give him the authority and the strength which is attached to a man who speaks in the name of the country, without whose help the War would never have been won, and who, since the conclusion of the War, has been the one stable point in a rocking and quivering world.
Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who have not been wholly unconcerned with their own electoral hopes and fears have spoken as if the whole fortunes of this Continent depended upon Russia, as if the Conference had nothing but Russia to consider. Leave Russia out of the question. Suppose it be found impossible to come to any sort of terms. Is there not enough in the state of Europe to occupy, and usefully occupy, a Conference of this kind? There is Austria, admirably equipped to be the financial centre of a great part of Eastern and South-eastern Europe, yet paralysed at this moment. There is Poland, a people with large industries, busily at work, but still paralysed by the uncertainties that surround them. There are the Baltic States. The Baltic trade is no new part of British trades and has played no small part in building up British commerce and finance as we know it to-day. Even if, from the point of view of Russia, the Conference were a failure, leaving things exactly where they are, is there nothing to be done among those other countries?
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles—I am not quoting his words—said this was a mere repetition of the Brussels Conference. He said truly that at Brussels most of these States were represented by men eminently qualified to give good advice to Europe, and that they gave admirable and sound advice. That is quite true, and if their advice had been acted upon by the Governments concerned, we should have made great strides on the road to recovery—much greater strides than any we have made at present. Why did the Brussels Conference fail to produce more results? Not for want of good advice, not for want of the presence of the most skilled experts, but for want of authority in the representatives of the different countries who were there to give their word, to agree to a common policy, and, once convinced of the wisdom of the advice, to carry to their own countries the knowledge and the influence which would secure action by their Governments in
that sense It is because Brussels has not produced the desired results that we now ask for a Conference in which Governments themselves will be represented, so that if conclusions be reached, there may be some hope that they will be carried out.
The hon. Member for Ince, the right hon. Member for Platting and others, complained of the limitations placed upon the scope of the Genoa Conference. In particular they complained that the Treaty of Versailles and the other treaties of peace cannot be discussed, and that reparations cannot be reviewed and adjusted on a new basis at that Conference. Would anyone not a madman, who desired the readjustment of the Treaty of Versailles, or a modification of the reparation agreement, choose a Conference like that at Genoa in order to open that question and discuss it? Had you proposed to put that upon the agenda, there would have been no Conference. [HON. MEMBEES: "Hear, hoar!"] Hon. Members opposite are agreed. Yet their Amendment desires a conference. So there is need for a little clear thinking. You cannot discuss those questions in a conference where all Europe, and States outside Europe, are present, where those are in the majority who have no interest in the question on the one side or on the other, and you cannot take your Allies to a conference, or continue to act with them, if you insist that no conference shall be held to consider the situation in Europe at which the whole Treaty of Versailles, and the whole of the Reparation Clauses are not open to discussion.
Reparations are introduced here, not because of their bearing on Genoa, as the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) and the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. Walsh) said, but because—what is it they are saying up and down the country? It is very interesting to examine the matter for a moment. What they are putting to the electors of the country is, shortly stated, this: "There are now 1¾ millions of people unemployed. This unemployment is due to the Government, and the reason why the Government are responsible for it is that they exact reparations from Germany." According to the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Clynes), British goods are driven out of our home market and out of neutral markets by German produc-
tion, and the pace and extent of German production are governed by the demand for reparations. So you arrive at the direct conclusion that because the British Government is a party to the demand for reparation, it is directly, and I think he added solely, responsible for the unemployment of 1¾ millions of people in this country. Has he ever inquired whether there was any unemployment in the United States? It would be worth while to inquire before going up and down the country, making statements which are at once mischievous and malicious. What is his argument? Does he suggest that if there were no reparations, there would be no unemployment? That was his argument. Germany, under the pressure of reparations, is exporting something between one-third and one-fourth in bulk of what were her exports before the War. Was there anything comparable to this unemployment before the War which would lead us to suppose that the unemployment after the War is all due to her now exporting one-third or one-fourth of what she exported before the War? I have attempted to state the limits of German competition. It is one-third to one-fourth, as compared to the period before the War, whether in our markets or in neutral markets. But he is suggesting that if there were no reparations, there would be no German export trade. The right hon. Gentleman and his party are going up and down the country telling tales which will not stand a moment's examination. They are trading upon ignorance, which they make it their business to foment and increase. It is just as well that we should have an opportunity of debating on the Floor of this House the favourite theme upon which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite dilate.
I spoke a little time ago about the usefulness of the Conference, even if nothing comes of the negotiations with Russia. If a satisfactory result be achieved by the negotiations with Russia, much more may be achieved, though I am the last to wish to put the possible results of the Genoa Conference too high. But some of my hon. Friends were alarmed at any kind of negotiations with Russia, or any sort of recognition in any circumstances of the present Russian Government. My right hon. Friend the Member for Central Glasgow, I think, put the case very fairly. There can be no substantial trade with Russia
until confidence in Russia is restored among the trading community. Neither individuals nor a country will inspire confidence in the trading community while they repudiate their obligations, deny their debts, and treat other people's property as if it were their own. But if anybody will look at the conditions laid down at Cannes, if they will consider what are the implications of those conditions—the recognition of all public debts and obligations, the establishment of a legal and judicial system which will sanction and enforce commercial and other contracts, and so on—if they will look at these conditions and consider what are the implications as worked out by the experts of the Allied Powers, I think they will agree with my right hon. Friend that if Genoa can achieve these conditions, if it can get from Russia the acceptance of these fundamental conditions of civilised government and comity of nations—then indeed the world will have made a step forward, and we may proceed upon the course which my right hon. Friend indicated to-day. I do not know whether it is possible. One of the objects of the Conference is to meet representatives of the Russian Government, and find out what is possible. I do not know what will be possible. I may read for the House a brief passage from an official communication, dated 16th March, from the Soviet Government to the British and other Governments, translating it as I go along. I believe that it has been already published:
In view of the false information propagated by the hostile Press of different coun-

tries as to the situation of the Russian Republic and the internal politics of its Government, the Government thinks it necessary to declare that the essential factor of its policy is the desire to create in Russia conditions favourable to the development of private initiative in the domain of industry, agriculture, transport, and commerce.

Is it not worth while to meet at Genoa in conference with the other nations of Europe the Government who profess that that is their object, and to see how far they are prepared to translate those professions into effective action? If that be the result of Genoa, we are entering on a new phase, and if, after Genoa, this new phase persists, and Russia not merely accepts the conditions which are the basis of the Genoa Conference, but loyally fulfils them and carries them out, then, indeed, I say will be the time for considering fully the complete recognition which we are unable to give at once, and our inability to give which will not prevent us at this moment from seeing, at any rate, whether we cannot take one step forward on the hard and difficult path which Europe and the world have to tread.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: I wish to draw the attention of the House—[Interruption] We are here to criticise the policy of the Government during the last three years. [Interruption,] This is discrediting the country. [Interruption.]

HON. MEMBERS: We will pay you back for this.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 379; Noes, 84.

Division No. 72.]
AYES.
[11.0 p.m.


Adkins, Sir William Ryland Dent
Beckett, Hon. Gervase
Brown, Major D. C.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Bruton, Sir James


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.


Amery, Leopold C. M. S.
Bonn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.


Armitage, Robert
Bennett, Sir Thomas Jewell
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James


Ashley, Colonel Wilfrid W.
Bethell, Sir John Henry
Burdon, Colonel Rowland


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.
Betterton, Henry B.
Burgoyne, Lt.-Col. Alan Hughes.


Astor, Viscountess
Bigland, Alfred
Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)


Atkey, A. R.
Birchall, J. Dearman
Butcher, Sir John George


Austin, Sir Herbert
Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Campbell, J. D. G.


Bagley, Captain E. Ashton
Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Blane, T. A.
Carew, Charles Robert S.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Borwick, Major G. O.
Carr, W. Theodore


Balfour, Sir R. (Glasgow, Partick)
Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith.
Carter, R. A. D. (Man., Withington)


Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-
Bowles, Colonel H. F.
Casey, T. W.


Barker, Major Robert H.
Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. (Glas., Gorbals)
Brassey, H. L C.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Breese, Major Charles E.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W.)


Barnston, Major Harry
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)


Barrand, A. R.
Briggs, Harold
Cheyne, Sir William Watson


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)
Brittain, Sir Harry
Chilcot, Lieut.-Com. Harry W.


Beauchamp, Sir Edward
Britton, G. B.
Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill


Beck, Sir Arthur Cecil
Broad, Thomas Tucker
 Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Mount, Sir William Arthur


Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert


Clough, Sir Robert
Higham, Charles Frederick
Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh)


Coats, Sir Stuart
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Murray, John (Leeds, West)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hills, Major John Waller
Murray, William (Dumfries)


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Hinds, John
Neal, Arthur


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Newson, Sir Percy Wilson


Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Hood, Sir Joseph
Newton, Major Sir Harry K.


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Hope, Sir H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn'n, W.)
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)
Norman, Major Rt. Hon, Sir Henry


Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)
Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.


Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)
Hopkins, John W. W.
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col, Sir John


Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)
Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Home, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)
Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L.


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Howard, Major S. G.
Parker, James


Davies, David (Montgomery)
Hudson, R. M.
Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)


Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry


Davies, Sir Joseph (Chester, Crewe)
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Pearce, Sir William


Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.)
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike


Dawson, Sir Philip
Hurd, Percy A.
Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)


Dean, Commander P. T.
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Denison-Pender, John C.
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Perkins, Walter Frank


Dewhurst, Lieut-Commander Harry
Jameson, John Gordon
Perring, William George


Dockrell, Sir Maurice
Jesson, C.
Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)


Doyle, N. Grattan
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Johnson, Sir Stanley
Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles


Edge, Captain Sir William
Johnstone, Joseph
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Ednam, Viscount
Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)
Pratt, John William


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Prescott, Major Sir W. H.


Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Purchase, H. G.


Elliott, Lt.-Col. Sir G. (Islington, W.)
Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George
Rae, H. Norman


Elveden, Viscount
Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)
Raeburn, Sir William H.


Evans, Ernest
Kenyon, Barnet
Ramsden, G. T.


Falcon, Captain Michael
Kidd, James
Randies, Sir John Scurrah


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Rankin, Captain James Stuart


Farquharson, Major A. C.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Raper, A. Baldwin


Fell, Sir Arthur
Knight, Major E. A. (Kidderminster)
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.


Fildes, Henry
Larmor, Sir Joseph
Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)


Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)


FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A.
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Remer, J. R.


Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
Lindsay, William Arthur
Remnant, Sir James


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Lister, Sir R. Ashton
Renwick, Sir George


Forestier-Walker, L.
Lloyd, George Butler
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)


Forrest, Walter
Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)


France, Gerald Ashburner
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Lorden, John William
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Frece, Sir Walter de
Lort-Williams, J.
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Gange, E. Stanley
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Rodger, A. K.


Ganzonl, Sir John
Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)
Rothschild, Lionel de


Gardiner, James
Lowther, Maj.-Gen. Sir C. (Penrith)
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Gardner, Ernest
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)
Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund


George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Lyle, C. E. Leonard
Rutherford, Colonel Sir J. (Darwen)


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
M'Donald, Dr. Bouverie F. P.
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)


Gilbert, James Daniel
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Glyn, Major Ralph
McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur


Golf, Sir R. Park
M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Gould, James C.
Macleod, J. Mackintosh
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward A.
McMicking, Major Gilbert
Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)


Grant, James Augustus
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Scott, Sir Samuel (St. Marylebone)


Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Seager, Sir William


Grayson, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Henry
Macquisten, F. A.
Seddon, J. A.


Green, Albert (Derby)
Magnus, Sir Philip
Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John


Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Mallaby-Deeley, Harry
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)


Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hackn'y, N.)
Mallalieu, Frederick William
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Sir Hamar
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Manville, Edward
Simm, M. T.


Greer, Sir Harry
Marks, Sir George Croydon
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


Gregory, Holman
Martin, A. E.
Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington)


Greig, Colonel Sir James William
Mason, Robert
Smith, Sir Malcolm (Orkney)


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.
Matthews, David
Smithers, Sir Alfred W.


Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Middlebrook, Sir William
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Mitchell, Sir William Lane
Stanton, Charles Butt


Hallwood, Augustine
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Starkey, Captain John Ralph


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


Hambro, Angus Valdemar
Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.
Stevens, Marshall


Hancock, John George
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Stewart, Gershom


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Morden, Col. W. Grant
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Sturrock, J. Leng


Harris, Sir Henry Percy
Morris, Richard
Sugden, W. H.


Haslam, Lewis
Morrison, Hugh
Sutherland, Sir William


Henderson, Lt.-Col. V. L. (Tradeston)
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.
Sykes, Colonel Sir A. J. (Knutsford)




Taylor, J.
Waring, Major Walter
Winterton, Earl


Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)
Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.
Wise, Frederick


Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)
Warren, Sir Alfred H.
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Thomas, Brig-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)
Watson, Captain John Bertrand
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)
Weston, Colonel John Wakefield
Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)


Thomas-Stanford, Charles
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.
Wood, Major Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)
Woolcock, William James U.


Thorpe, Captain John Henry
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward
Worsfold, T. Cato


Tickier, Thomas George
Willey, Lieut-Colonel F. V.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Townley, Maximilian G.
Williams, C. (Tavistock)
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Tryon, Major George Clement
Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury)
Young, E. H. (Norwich)


Turton, Edmund Russborough
Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Vickers, Douglas
Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud
Young, W. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)


Wallace, J.
Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.
Younger, Sir George


Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)
Wilson, Joseph H. (South Shields)



Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr. McCurdy.


Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)
Windsor, Viscount



Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)
Winfrey, Sir Richard



NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D.
Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Rattan, Peter Wilson


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Grundy, T. W.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Amman, Charles George
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)


Banton, George
Halls, Walter
Robertson, John


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hartshorn, Vernon
Rose, Frank H.


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Hayday, Arthur
Sexton, James


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Hay ward, Evan
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
Sitch, Charles H.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)
Spencer, George A.


Bramsdon, Sir Thomas
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Sutton, John Edward


Bromfield, William
Hogge, James Myles
Swan, J. E.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Irving, Dan
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Cairns, John
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Cape, Thomas
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord Ft. (Hitchin)
Kennedy, Thomas
Tillett, Benjamin


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lawson, John James
Watts-Morgan, Lieut-Col. D.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Lunn, William
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Wilson, James (Dudley)


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Mills, John Edmund
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Mosley, Oswald
Wintringham, Margaret


Foot, Isaac
Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Galbraith, Samuel
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Gillie, William
Myers, Thomas



Glanville, Harold James
Naylor, Thomas Ellis
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Newbould, Alfred Ernest
Mr. T. Griffiths and Mr. W. Smith.

Question put,
That this House, approves the Resolutions passed by the Supreme Council at Cannes as the basis of the Genoa Conference, and will support His Majesty's Govern-

ment in endeavouring to give effect to them."

The House divided: Ayes, 372; Noes, 94.

Division No. 73.]
AYES.
[11.15 p.m.


Adkins, Sir William Ryland Dent
Beckett, Hon. Gervase
Bruton, Sir James


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.


Amery, Leopold C. M. S.
Bonn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James


Armitage, Robert
Bennett, Sir Thomas Jewell
Burdon, Colonel Rowland


Ashley, Colonel Wilfrid W.
Bethell, Sir John Henry
Burgoyne, Lt.-Col. Alan Hughes


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.
Betterton, Henry B.
Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)


Astor, Viscountess
Bigland, Alfred
Butcher, Sir John George


Atkey, A. R.
Birchall, J. Dearman
Campbell, J. D. G.


Austin, Sir Herbert
Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.


Bagley, Captain E. Ashton
Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Carew, Charles Robert S.


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Blane, T. A.
Carr, W. Theodore


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Borwick, Major G. O.
Carter, R. A. D. (Man., Withington)


Balfour, Sir R. (Glasgow, Partick)
Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Casey, T. W.


Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-
Bewyer, Captain G. W. E.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. (Glas., Gorbals)
Brassey, H. L. C.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Breese, Major Charles E.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W.)


Barnston, Major Harry
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)


Barrand, A. R.
Briggs, Harold
Cheyne, Sir William Watson


Barrle, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)
Brittain, Sir Harry
Chilcot, Lieut.-Com. Harry W.


Beauchamp, Sir Edward
Britton, G. B.
Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill


Beck, Sir Arthur Cecil
Broad, Thomas Tucker.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert


Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Hills, Major John Waller
Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh)


Clough, Sir Robert
Hinds, John
Murray, John (Leeds, West)


Coats, Sir Stuart
Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Murray, William (Dumfries)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Neal, Arthur


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Holmes, J. Stanley
Newson, Sir Percy Wilson


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hood, Sir Joseph
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Hope, Sir H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn, W.)
Newton, Major Sir Harry K.


Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)
Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Hopkins, John W. W.
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.


Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)
Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut-Col. Sir John


Daiziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)
Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)
Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark


Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Howard, Major S. G.
Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L.


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Hudson, R. M.
Parker, James


Davies, David (Montgomery)
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)


Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry


Davies, Sir Joseph (Chester, Crewe)
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Pearce, Sir William


Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.)
Hurd, Percy A.
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike


Dawson, Sir Philip
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)


Dean, Commander P. T.
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Perkins, Walter Frank


Denison-Pender, John C.
Jameson, John Gordon
Perring, William George


Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry
Jesson, C.
Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)


Dockrell, Sir Maurice
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Doyle, N. Grattan
Johnson, Sir Stanley
Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles


Edge, Captain Sir William
Johnstone, Joseph
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Ednam, Viscount
Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)
Pratt, John William


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Prescott, Major Sir W. H.


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.


Elliott, Lt.-Col. Sir G. (Islington, W.)
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Purchase, H. G.


Elveden, Viscount
Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George
Rae, H. Norman


Entwistie, Major C. F.
Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)
Raeburn, Sir William H.


Evans, Ernest
Kenyon, Barnet
Ramsden, G. T.


Falcon, Captain Michael
Kidd, James.
Randles, Sir John Scurrah


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Klley, James Daniel
Rankin, Captain James Stuart


Farquharson, Major A. C.
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Raper, A. Baldwin


Fell, Sir Arthur
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.


Fildes, Henry
Knight, Major E. A. (Kidderminster)
Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)


Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Larmor, Sir Joseph
Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)


FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A.
Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Remer, J. R.


Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Remnant, Sir James


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Lindsay, William Arthur
Renwick, Sir George


Forestier-Walker, L.
Lister, Sir R. Ashton
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)


Forrest, Walter
Lloyd, George Butler
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)


France, Gerald Ashburner
Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Frece, Sir Walter de
Lorden, John William
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Lort-Williams, J.
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Gange, E. Stanley
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Rodger, A. K.


Ganzonl, Sir John
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Rothschild, Lionel de


Gardiner, James
Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Gardner, Ernest
Lowther, Maj.-Gen Sir C. (Penrith)
Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund


George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)
Rutherford, Colonel Sir J. (Darwen)


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Lyle, C. E. Leonard
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)


Gilbert, James Daniel
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
M'Donald, Dr. Souverie F. P.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Glyn, Major Ralph
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur


Goff, Sir R. Park
Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Gould, James C.
McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward A.
M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.
Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)


Grant, James Augustus
Macleod, J. Mackintosh
Scott, Sir Samuel (St. Marylebone)


Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)
McMicking, Major Gilbert
Seager, Sir William


Grayson, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Henry
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Seddon, J. A.


Green, Albert (Derby)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John


Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Macquisten, F. A.
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)


Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Magnus, Sir Philip
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Sir Hamar
Mallaby-Deeley, Harry
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Mallalieu, Frederick William
Simm, M. T.


Greer, Sir Harry
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


Gregory, Holman
Manville, Edward
Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington)


Greig, Colonel Sir James William
Marks, Sir George Croydon
Smith, Sir Malcolm (Orkney)


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.
Mason, Robert
Smithers, Sir Alfred W.


Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Matthews, David
Stanley, Major Hon. G (Preston)


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Middlebrook, Sir William
Stanton, Charles Butt


Hallwood, Augustine
Mitchell, Sir William Lane
Starkey, Captain John Ralph


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


Hancock, John George
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz
Stevens, Marshall


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.
Stewart, Gershom


Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedtord, Luton)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Harris, Sir Henry Percy
Morden, Col. W. Grant
Sturrock, J. Leng


Haslam, Lewis
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Sugden, W. H.


Henderson, Lt.-Col. V. L. (Tradeston)
Morris, Richard
Sutherland, Sir William


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Morrison, Hugh
Sykes, Colonel Sir A. J. (Knutsford)


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.
Taylor, J.


Higham, Charles Frederick
Mount, Sir William Arthur
Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)




Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)
Waring, Major Walter
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)
Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.
Winfrey, Sir Richard


Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)
Watson, Captain John Bertrand
Winterton, Earl


Thomas-Stanford, Charles
Weston, Colonel John Wakefield
Wise, Frederick


Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Thorpe, Captain John Henry
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Tickler, Thomas George
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward
Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)


Townley, Maximilian G.
Willey, Lieut-Colonel F. V.
Wood, Major Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Tryon, Major George Clement
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)
Worsfold, T. Cato


Turton, Edmund Russborough
Williams, C. (Tavistock)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Vickere, Douglas
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Young, E. H. (Norwich)


Wallace, J.
Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury)
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)
Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald
Young, W. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)


Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.
Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud
Younger, Sir George


Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.



Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)
Wilson, Joseph H. (South Shields)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.)
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr. Mc Curdy.


NOES.


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.
Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Gretton, Colonel John
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Ammon, Charles George
Grundy, T. W.
Polson, Sir Thomas A.


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Gwynne, Rupert S.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)


Banton, George
Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l, W. D'by)
Robertson, John


Barker, Major Robert H.
Halls, Walter
Sexton, James


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hartshorn, Vernon
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Hayday, Arthur
Sitch, Charles H.


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Spencer, George A.


Bowerman, Ht. Hon. Charles W.
Hogge, James Myles
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Bromfield, William
Irving, Dan
Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Sutton, John Edward


Cairns, John
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Swan, J. E.


Cape, Thomas
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Joynson-Hicks, Sir William
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Lawson, John James
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
Lunn, William
Tillett, Benjamin


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Craig, Capt. C. C. (Antrim, South)
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Mills, John Edmund
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Davies, A. (Lancaster, Ciltheroe)
Mosley, Oswald
Wilson, Capt. A. S. (Holdernass)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)
Wilson, Field-Marshal Sir Henry


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox)
Wilson, James (Dudley)


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Myers, Thomas
Wolmer, Viscount


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Nail, Major Joseph
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Galbraith, Samuel
Naylor, Thomas Ellis



Gillis, William
Newbould, Alfred Ernest
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Glanville, Harold James
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Mr. Kennedy and Mr. J. Griffiths.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being half-past Eleven of the Clock, o'clock. Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, with
out Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Half after Eleven o'Clock.